40 x 50" LED prints from 8x10 scans on i900?

[Jeremiah Dart]

I've been shooting 8x10 for a few years now. I've recently graduated from the School of Visual Arts.
I no long have acess to an 8x10 enlarger, so I'm wondering if I can make digital C-prints with an
LED printer using scans from consumer scanners. I've been reading a lot about the Epson 4990 and the Mircrotek i900. Would it be
viable to print at the 40-50" range or the 50-60" with a scan that I get from these machines?

I've made some 20x24" prints with the LED from an old School Epson flat bed and they look just fine.

My main concerns are Newton Rings, shadow detail and of course image sharpness.

Should I even consider this route or should I toss the 8x10 and just start shooting 4x5 and go the Imacon way?

Thanks for the help,

- Jeremiah

[Ed Burlew]

Well that's one idea. I have been an 8x10 shooter for a few years and cosidered just that, then I saw the 30x40 prints of a person who did just that and frankly the definition was substantially less ina 30x40, so I can tel you that you will have disappointment in the 40x50. If you want to first shoot some 4x5 and use theat scaner and that printer, then comare it to the 8x10 direct print and you WILL see a difference. THe other point is that you will spend ALOT more Time in front of a computer screen thatn you do now. My self, I prefer to be shooting rather than beng infromnt of a computer. I would ather delegate the printing.

[Bruce Watson]

I've been reading a lot about the Epson 4990 and the Mircrotek i900. Would it be viable to print at the 40-50" range or the 50-60" with a scan that I get from these machines?

Would your print be "viable?" Well, sure. It would be a print.

Would you like the results? How should any of us know? We don't have your judgement. The only way for you to find out what works for you, is for you to do the work. As the wise man asked: "Why guess when you can know?"

In this case, scan the same film some different ways, and print out smaller sections of what would be huge prints. Then put them on the same wall under the same lights and compare. The aim here is to compare apple-to-apples, with the only difference being the scanner.

My own rule of thumb is consumer flatbeds to 4-5x, pro flatbeds / Imacons to 6-7x, and drum scans beyond that. Make of it what you will.

[Roger Hein]

Ditto what Bruce said but will add my own rule of thumb is a bit stricter for consumer flatbeds - 3x max.

[Stephen Willard]

8x10 enlrges are cheap on ebay. You could buy one for less than what you would pay for a new 4x5 enlarger. Also making high quality big digital prints is very expensive if you have some else do the printing. Everyone I know who does serious digital work says you need to do drum scans because of the greater Dmax.

[Ken Lee]

The rule of thumb is to print at around 300 dpi. If your scanner can scan at 1200 ppi, then a 4x enlargement is possible. If the viewing distance is far away, then you can get by with lower res output. If you print out at 200, then a 6x enlargement is possible. Keep in mind that due to larger lenses being required for 8x10 and beyond, depth of field becomes more of an issue, and large prints tend to expose it.

[Brian Ellis]

I use the Epson 4990 and scan 8x10 negatives but they're b&w (16 bits) and I don't print anywhere near as large as you're talking about. One of the principal problems I think you'd have with a 40x50 or so C print is the file size. You'd need a massive amount of RAM to scan an 8x10 negative at 48 bits and sufficient ppi (1500 or so minimum for 40x50) to make an excellent print that size.