How large can I print this 4x5 scan?

[jzakko]

Hi guys, I've read lots of varied responses on this topic so I hoped that providing the actual file that will be printed will get more precisely tailored responses. I'm not an experienced printer, just printing one of my shots as a gift for my brother's birthday. I'll be using uprinting.com because they have the best prices and can print very large and I really want to show off the advantage of shooting LF, but since I've never used this site I'd love anybody experienced with it to give me some feedback on the site.

What's the largest size I can print to without perceivable loss in quality? I want it to stand up to scrutiny. I was planning on doing a 40x50", how would that look?

Anyways, here's the download link:

http://we.tl/TqtgawEOK5

thanks

[jbenedict]

Do a little research on print size and viewing distance. 40"x50" is one big print and there a lot of considerations involved. Unless this print is going on a gymnasium wall, it could overwhelm the size of the room.

[Peter De Smidt]

Big prints are very expensive to frame properly. Make sure to consider how you're going to frame it, and how expensive it'll be, before making a huge print.

[Bill Burk]

The size you propose from the pixels you generated is very near what a "newspaper print" would look like: about 85 pixels per inch.

So it would be coarse from a close examination, anyone who knew what they were looking for would see a pixelation.

I'd recommend that you mail the original negative to Lenny Eiger who could provide a true drum scan of the negative and give you a file worthy of 40x50 printing.

At 30 x 24 inches you are causing 120 pixels per inch. This is a normal business printing quality which would survive a close up examination. That would be the limit I would print your scan to.

[Bill Burk]

p.s. Your image is beautiful and would look good printed large like that.

[Tin Can]

I don't know anything about printing that big, but that is a great image and to me, it would good huge, matted on white with thin black frame.

Very good! It reminds me of this, http://cdn.omgfacts.com/2014/6/2/432...dd46f0fd9d.jpg

[jzakko]

The size you propose from the pixels you generated is very near what a "newspaper print" would look like: about 85 pixels per inch.

I'm a little confused, the file image dimensions are 9262x7413. I might be mathing wrong (as an undergraduate film major, I haven't mathed in years), but if the wide side has 9262 pixels, doesn't 9262/50=185 pixels per inch? Thanks for the advice.

[jzakko]

Randy, thanks man, I appreciate that.

[koraks]

if the wide side has 9262 pixels, doesn't 9262/50=185 pixels per inch?

That is correct. It's also a nicely sharp scan of a good negative, so I would be confident printing it at a large size.

[Gary Tarbert]

I have done some that large off 4x5 must be drum scanned and a good sharp image to start with , Which from the download it looks like that part is fine , It just worries me the amount of pure black areas may be an issue as you enlarge to that size . Have you ever enlarged a 35mm neg to about 10 inches by 14 inches it would be roughly the same difference , I would aim for 240 pixels per inch , So unless my math is wrong your scan might just fall short , i am happy to be corrected on this , because i am only using regimented formulas that seem to work for me