Max Size

[Brian_A]

Hello All,

What is the max print size you have successfully scanned for 4x5 or 6x17 (6x17 if you have done that) with the Epson V750/SilverFast for print? I plan on having my local custom lab do a Chromira print. I have an order for a 56 inch wide print and while I would much rather not have to pay for a drum scan, I will if I have to. I've talked to a few professional 6x17ers that have went to 40" with it and said it was fine. But they have never tried to go larger. Not to say they wouldn't, they just haven't.

Thank you for your time in answering. Your input is appreciated.

-Brian

[Ed Richards]

Depends entirely on the negative. If it is vague shapes in the fog, you could probably shoot it with your iPhone and do OK. If it is a field of grass that is only interesting if you can see each blade, then you better give Lenny or Bruce a call and get the best drum scan you can buy.

[Kirk Gittings]

Depends entirely on the negative. If it is vague shapes in the fog, you could probably shoot it with your iPhone and do OK. If it is a field of grass that is only interesting if you can see each blade, then you better give Lenny or Bruce a call and get the best drum scan you can buy.

Well said Ed. Personally I think even carefully done wet scans on a 750 (I use one) are pretty humble compared to a drum scan at even a 16x20 enlargement.

[Lachlan 717]

Brian,

Haved you looked at any of the fractal geometrical enlargement software?

I know next to nothing about it, so will be interested if you have.

If you haven't can anyone else here throw in some infomation as to its quality?

Thanks,

Lachlan.

[Kirk Gittings]

The best I have seen is Genuine Fractals. It does a good job in a pinch (like a magazine needing a serious crop), but is no substitute for a quality original scan or digital capture at or above the resolution you need.

[Brian_A]

It's not an image that needs cropping. It doesn't have huge amounts of space where ultra-fine detail like blades of glass by any means. Chrome is going to do an Imacon virtual drum scan for me for this one. I would say it's somewhere in the middle. I am planning on doing some tests via Lenny's service here soon, though. Right now I'm worried about either doing the scan on my machine or having Chrome do it on their Imacon for this specific image.

I have used GF and agree with Kirk.. I would rather not use it, but if you're not trying to go larger than about 200% over what your original image is, it's generally pretty nice. No examples on this computer to show you, though.

[Allen in Montreal]

I agree with Kirk, we have GF at the newspaper and use it when an image is sent to us and just does not have the beef to be printed without GF. it is not a tool that should be counted on in your main workflow.

The best I have seen is Genuine Fractals. It does a good job in a pinch (like a magazine needing a serious crop), but is no substitute for a quality original scan or digital capture at or above the resolution you need.

[rdenney]

I have seen a 6x12 negative (not mine) scanned using an Epson 4990 and printed at 20x40" that would meet the standards of most people hanging art on their walls. Granted, I didn't compare that print to the same image scanned in a drum scanner, but then neither can anyone looking at the print on my wall. But the print does need good image clarity down into the details of the image, even when viewed through my bifocals, to work properly.

A 6x12 at 20x40" is about a 9x enlargement. That is probably at the edge of the acceptable range (according to the standard set by this print), but it's enough to make a 56" print from a 6x17 negative. And scanning at 2400 should give you enough pixels so that you won't need to upsample the image.

There is always a better quality method out there, but there is also the law of diminishing returns. Each new observable improvement in quality might increase the cost by a large multiple. I don't think the print I'm using as my reference and example in any way undermines the value of large format, even if a better print is possible (and I don't in any way argue that a better print is not possible).

And based on what I see for sale at craft shows and in most consumer-level galleries, it's already far superior.

Rick "perfection is unattainable" Denney

[Mike1234]

Culling from everything I've read 5x or so seems to be the limit from a good typical flatbet scanner such as an Epson v700 if one is picky about the final print. And this is if one is very careful and utilizes the best upgrades. I'll be shooting 4x10 or 5x12 and this translates to a 50-60" print scanned and printed at home... maybe a "bit" larger. It's not likely I'll want anything larger than this but, should I go mad one day and insist on it, I'll just have a very high quality drum scan made and have a commercial lab make a Lightjet print. For the few images from which I "might" want ultra-large prints it makes no economic sense to spend huge wads of cash to have this ability at home. High quality scans aren't cheap and neither are high quality wall-sized prints but you'd have to make a whole bunch of those to pay for the quipment. I can't imagine, as a hobbyist, ever needing a multi-thousand-dollar drum scanner nor a multi-thousand-dollar printer at home. Now... if I had a gazillion dollars to play with, that's quite another story.

The above stated, I'd like to see a crop of a 300dpi scan at 56" from your image. Curiousity always gets the best of me.

[BarryS]

A 56" wide print of a 6x17 film is a little more than an 8X enlargement. I have a Microtek M1 which resolves fairly closely (maybe a bit more) than a V750 and I find it makes a quality print out to 4X or 5X. Beyond that, the image starts to break down. I've seen some Chrome prints from Imacon scans done at 6X and they looked good--not optical quality, but good. At 8X, I'd get a pro flatbed or drum scan unless you don't mind seeing digital artifacts at close viewing distances.