Scanner for very big 4x5" enlargements

[Kneke]

Hi, I have some questions about making really large black and white prints (about 51x64") from scanned 4x5" negatives.

I have made prints this large myself in the darkroom, with nice results. But, I don't have a darkroom anymore (and it was very time consuming at those sizes). From now on I'd like to be able to scan 4x5" negatives, edit them in photoshop, and have them printed that large in a lab. Is it possible to get images good/large enough for these black and white enlargements from a consumer/prosumer scanner? I'm not seeking exactly the same quality as the darkroom prints, just something that comes close to decent.

The thing is that I'm on a very tight budget, and don't have the money to have a lab make me drum scans all the time. Also, with these photo's the size is really important, so if I must I'd rather lose some quality of the print then size. So, I am seeking a reasonable alternative.

Any suggestions or thoughts are appreciated!

[George Stewart]

Probably the cheapest way to go, and still make the print size you want, would be to use a DSLR. If you have a light table and a copy stand, you could take twelve or more overlaping shots and assemble them in Photoshop. With sufficient patience, one could digitize any size film.

I'm surprised, with the cost of highend scanners, that no one has come up with a sliding film holder thingy for just such an endevor.

[Bruce Watson]

Hi, I have some questions about making really large black and white prints (about 51x64") from scanned 4x5" negatives.

I have made prints this large myself in the darkroom, with nice results. But, I don't have a darkroom anymore (and it was very time consuming at those sizes). From now on I'd like to be able to scan 4x5" negatives, edit them in photoshop, and have them printed that large in a lab. Is it possible to get images good/large enough for these black and white enlargements from a consumer/prosumer scanner?

IMHO, no. You are talking about nearly 13x enlargement. CCDs start to loose out to PMTs around 8x.

I'm not seeking exactly the same quality as the darkroom prints, just something that comes close to decent.

The thing is that I'm on a very tight budget, and don't have the money to have a lab make me drum scans all the time. Also, with these photo's the size is really important, so if I must I'd rather lose some quality of the print then size. So, I am seeking a reasonable alternative.

Sadly, there aren't any reasonable alternatives. For high quality and big enlargements, drum scans are the answer.

If you are doing enough scans you can always buy a drum scanner on the used market. They aren't hard to find, nor are they all that hard to run (about as difficult as learning to use a view camera). Do the math and see if it makes sense for you.

The only "reasonable alternative" I can think of is for you to move to 10x8. From there you could get scans done on a professional flat bed like a Kodak/Creo Eversmart Supreme II or so. I don't know that this would actually be cheaper than drum scanning 5x4 however.

[Kirk Gittings]

You are talking about nearly 13x enlargement. CCDs start to loose out to PMTs around 8x.

This is really true, especially if you want the print to hold up to close inspection, which is one of the reasons we shoot LF.

[Walter Calahan]

Tight budget.

Befriend someone with a good flat bed scanner, like, but not exclusively, Epson 4990 or V750 M or Imacon (not a flat bed). Drop off a case of beer or good wine for the use of the scanner.

Then with Photoshop CS2, use "bicubic smoother" to interpolate the file to your large size. Once all image manipulation is done, convert to LAB color and sharpen only the L channel, then convert back to RGB.

It's not the most ideal solution, but it is "a" solution for people on a budget.

[Kneke]

Thanks for sharing all this great information!

Walter Calahan, I've never used the technique you describe before. I have Photoshop CS2, but have only little experience with it because I did everything in the darkroom before. Would this technique allow me to print at these sizes using self scanned negatives? What exactly would it do for the quality of the prints? A scanner like the Epson 4990 would be in my price range, it costs less then 2 drum scans (I live in Holland, and places like Beeldgebouw charge over 200 euro for 1 scan).

Again, thanks for all the answers.

[Ed Richards]

I think you will do fine with a consumer flatbed like a 4990 or 700 or a canon 9550, if you standard is to do about as well or a little worse than you could in the darkroom. A drum scanned and properly handled digital print will be sharper, in big prints, than what you can do in the darkroom, and certainly sharpter than a consumer scanner. I bet the consumer scanner, however, will be as sharp as your darkroom prints in large sizes.

[Kneke]

That would be great. Then I could now work with an consumer scanner, and in the future have them scanned in better quality if needed. If others have other thoughts on this, I'd still like to hear them. Thanks!

[Ken Lee]

You have not mentioned the distance from which you expect the images to be viewed. If you expect people to walk right up and look at the prints, then a 13x enlargement may not give dazzling results, no matter how good your scanner is. Grain will be apparent, depth of field issues will be present, and the limited resolution of large format lenses will make itself evident.

On the other hand, if people are going to see these images from across a room, then even a consumer scanner may suffice.

[Kneke]

The final prints will be viewed in galleries/museums, and should be seen as a whole, or even in series. So, I guess most people won't get very close for inspection. However, you never know how people will look at it, some may get close, but at the moment I would not mind if those people would find a bit of grain.