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

[Tyler Boley]

I agree with Jim. I say this as someone with a drum scanner, a proponent of using the right tools for the job, and someone who will by instinct try to convince you to go with a drum scan because, let's face t, I sell that service and have a stake in it's superiority.
On the other hand I have worked with a lot of color neg scans from v700s/v750s, carried out meticulously, and the files carefully worked for final large print size from 120 and 4x5, for example this show-
http://www.custom-digital.com/2011/0...r-photography/
these prints were not quite as large as yours, but we have printed some of the same files larger, and your film is larger to begin with.

I'd liked to have drum scanned her work, side by side a discriminating eye may find a difference, but on their own they are stunning prints with no impression of anything lacking. Proper technique, and in particular, careful sharpening practices are critical. I'd add that a higher density film, like transparency film, with higher sharpness and resolved detail, and lower grain, would have revealed greater differences between the scanning technologies. With color neg scanning we are usually trying to keep grain from overresolving, more like an enlarger might depict it. It also depends on the image content.
There's no harm in giving it a try.

Tyler

[Kirk Gittings]

I put a lot of time and effort into every file that is a "keeper". I may do a workup from a 750 scan to see if it "works" and may even do a small print from it. But I never do a final workup of an image on anything less than a Lenny drum scan or a one I do myself from a IQsmart that I hav access to periodically. Its not just about whether the resolution numbers suggest a large print is necessary, it is also about tonal separation in the deep shadows and highlights etc. The better the scan the easier it is for me to work the file and get the tones, microcontrast, shadow separation and highlight detail that I insist on.

[mandoman7]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say yes....If the test print works for you, then use your Epson scan.

I would agree with Kirk here that the shadow tones from the V700 are weak and frustrating. It feels like a plastic toy in use, with really flimsy film holders.

And I certainly would not want to get on the wrong side of our more experienced moderator, but as to ruing the V700 out for any type of presentation prints, I'm with Jim on this one. Out of necessity (client budget), I've had the chance recently to check the quality of 30x40's from a v700, fully aware of all of the discussions on this forum, and found it to be surprisingly tolerable. I've read many long discussions on this forum about the limits of that scanner, but as with many subjects you read where the winds flow in a particular direction, personal experience may not be consistent with what the general opinion on a forum might be. The V700 certainly is wonderful for cataloging, which was my main intent when purchased, but you can definitely make good prints from those scans IMO. I am saving up for and keeping my eye on drum scanners lately as they've seemed to come down, but things need to get produced before that happens.

The recent job was to do portraits of a winery's growers in 5x7 and then to print 30x40's for the new tasting room, for a certain amount of dollars. Using the standard local service providers, so to speak, was not an option under this budget. I did find a willing guy with an Epson 9900 printer and mounting tools, though, and maxed the scan resolution on my V700 for what ended up to be 5 mounted prints. We first did as Jim has suggested, of course, which was to do a test print using the paper and mounting at the full resolution size, to get a commitment from the client, as well as convince myself that it was viable. Once they were up in the room, questions of the n'th degree of resolution or shadow detail seemed to be kind of moot, as they looked way better than the smudgy digital vineyard shots you typically see in these spaces anyway. The winery is LaFollette in sebastopol CA if anyone happens to be in that neighborhood. On the negatives where I managed to get things in focus, the sharpness in the eyes was pretty surprising, I must say.

[Greg Lockrey]

I've scanned 8x10" negs with a 10,000xl for a client who is a purist and blew away their expectation....

[John NYC]

A lot of it depends on your subject matter. I wanted extra sharp detail and contrast on lights and support cables on bridges and details on buildings that were miles in the distance. If you are shooting a portrait, where the smallest thing you need detail on is an eyelash rendering at a half in long on paper, you might not care as much about the subtle details.

Try for yourself and see what works for you.

[Heroique]

...With color neg scanning we are usually trying to keep grain from over-resolving, more like an enlarger might depict it. It also depends on the image content. There's no harm in giving it a try...

To be sure, the 160 Porta film (post #1) might be the troubling variable in this project, even if every other link in the chain is ideal. My “perfect-from-start-to-finish” 4990 scans that generate my biggest, most satisfying prints are from Fuji-64 + 85b transparencies w/o troubling shadows. By comparison, the degradation w/ ISO-100 transparency films for my best viewers may not be significant, but neither is it negligible.

[Tyler Boley]

...With color neg scanning we are usually trying to keep grain from overresolving, more like an enlarger might depict it...
Tyler

I should have qualified that by saying a diffusion enlarger...
Tyler

[Ken Lee]

"At Optimum Exposure, we recommend 2000dpi as the best compromise resolution as it provides a smoother result by avoiding the grain resolution."

Tim Parkin has some relevent observations about scanning Large Format film here.

On a separate note, even the cheapo prints I've made at that size from 5x7 HP5+ (at lower scanning resolution) - printing on an office laser printer - give pleasing prints. Non Large-Format viewers find them remarkably sharp.

[Noah B]

I can't believe some of these guys have said no because there's not reason not to. Why not? If it looks bad then at least you know what it looks like and know the limits of your equipment. Work with what you have and besides, with a print that large it's not going to be super sharp close up, its about the viewing distance. You can take the negative and input what size you want to print at in the scan dialogue box, then let everything else work its magic. I printed a 30x42 inch print from a nikon d3200 and it looks great. Just a tad bit of sharpening is all you would need to do.

[Noah A]

Yes, I think you can do it if you're careful although a drum scan is certainly better. I scan my Portra 160 on my drum scanner and it provides better results for large prints. But if you're careful, I think you can get a pretty good print out of the Epson.

I get the best results from my V750 if I scan at 6400dpi then downsample to 3200 (or to the print dimensions I want at 360dpi, whatever that works out to be). While I know the scanner can't resolve anything close to 6400dpi, I've compared the results and I do get better results when I scan high and downsample. With 5x7 that would be a really huge file, but I'd at least scan at 3200 for sure, then size down to your print size.

Fluid mounting would help, probably, but I've never done it on the epson. And I only have the stock neg carrier, but if I was using the scanner for more critical work I'd get a betterscanning holder. I might have gotten lucky since my V750 is pretty damn sharp with the stock carrier, so maybe the focal distance of mine happens to match the height of the stock carrier.

I use viewscan and I normally get the best results by having the software output a raw 16-bit tiff file. I then invert the image and use levels to remove the color cast in PS. The Epson has no problem capturing the tonal range of Portra 160, so the key is getting separation of the tones as Kirk said, and I think that's easier in PS than in Vuescan, though I haven't tried some of the other software for the Epson.

Finally, I'd sharpen the file carefully, which is something I'm not all that good at since frankly my drum scans need very little sharpening. But ask around, since that will be important to getting the most out of the epson.