4x5 scans.. drum or virtual drum for 40"x50" print

[rdenney]

Is it just me?

No.

People often come into large format with limited photographic experience, thinking that with the right big box they can make huge prints like those they see in Peter Lik's galleries (sorry, that was a bit too editorial). It's like they want to arrive at the destination without having traveled the road. For any form of art that requires high levels of technique, the road has to provide its own satisfactions, because the destination is glimpsed all too infrequently. With large format, there is more journey than destination, and lots of us have been taking baby steps on that road for decades. And the road has many branches, crossings, and parallel paths, all of which can be explored, but some of which come to a dead end and require backtracking.

So, they jump into large format thinking it's the magic bullet, only to discover that they still can't get that tack-sharp 40x50" print because nothing seems to be sharp printed that large. They think they must need a better scanner. So, they pay guys like you lots to work your magic, and guess what? It's still fuzzy. Maybe they stopped down too far, or not far enough. Or everything in the photo was blowing in the wind throughout the exposure. Or they used a tiny aperture instead of a careful choice of where the focal plane should be, resulting in too long an exposure and lots of diffraction. Or maybe they used a sub-optimal film and developer combination, or the negative is too thick, or whatever. It takes a little while for them to realize that large format is a sort of quality catechism, where every link in the chain is equally important and has to be learned deeply, starting with knowing what times, places, and conditions are even conducive to making that quality possible.

To me, the scanning is one of the last links in the chain, and in many ways the least important. If I produce a photograph worthy of being printed 40x50, and anything important is riding on doing so, then I'll get the negative drum-scanned, because at that size, quality has to be a religious pursuit. I have no place to hang 16x20 prints, and most of those prints I've made even that size sit in a map case or are leaned up against the wall behind a closet door. But I can make 16x20 prints that please me using stuff I can (barely) afford to buy and maintain in my home. Even if my prints are never seen by anyone but me, I know I made them and they are milestones on that road. I may never reach a destination, but that's okay--we learn a catechism because the purity of travel is as meaningful to us as the destination.

Back in my triathlon days, there was a pearl of wisdom that floated around among runners: Running a fast 5K takes as much training and dedication (and talent) as running a fast marathon. Greg Lemond: "It doesn't hurt any less, you just go faster." Those who want to jump from their DSLR to making good 40x50 prints should learn to make good 16x20's first, and that can be done with Epson stuff. I've heard people on this forum say that at that size, 4x5 is no better than 6x7 or a high-end DSLR, but that's not the point. It is harder to make a good 16x20 with a 4x5 camera than it is to make a good 16x20 with, say, a Pentax 6x7. But once they have learned the catechism well enough to produce real quality at 16x20, the 40x50 prints will be a lot easier to approach, and they'll know the answer to questions like these without having to ask a bunch of strangers.

Rick "right there with you" Denney

[David Luttmann]

As long as everyone is quoting me, let me correct a couple of things. I did have a 750 at one time and returned it because I didn't like the quality. I have Premier now but my early scans of film were done with a Howtek 4500. The number of 1100 was a round number off the top of my head that expressed more the frustration I had with the device than actual fact - and it was a long time ago. It's may not be that far off, 30-50%, that is, unless you align the scanner, possibly wet mount and are generally very careful, which are all things one should do. In that case, I will happily defer to Sandy, who is quite knowledgeable, and was quite right to correct me when I quoted those numbers earlier. I think the 700-750, properly tuned, is probably capable of 2000-2300, as Sandy says. Aztek's tests on the scannerforum site were done long before the 7xx series. I think it was a 1640.

For comparison, and in this case quoting Aztek's numbers, the Premier is capable of 7264. It's quite a difference. Scans come out sharp, and usually don't require any sharpening at all. The thing sucks the marrow out of a piece of film.

Overall, I think PMT technology is unquestionably better in general than the CCD technology, a little in resolution, more in range and number of colors reproduced. I know they can be expensive and I appreciate that not everyone can afford one of these. If I was going to do a 50 inch print, however, I would use one myself... and it probably wouldn't be the cheapest one either. We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well.

I just did a whole series for someone at a deep discount. When he makes a little money from his efforts, he will move up to a more reasonable price, so I can eat, too. We are all in this together...

I hope this clears a few things up...

Lenny

Thanks Lenny.