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

[starkhaze]

Hi guys,

I am shooting a project on 4x5 portra 400 mostly. I want to make prints around 40"x50". I want them to look great.

Subject matter is people in situations. full figures no close ups.

I use a epson 700 for rough scans and proofing. Quite soon I'm going to have a batch of pictures ready to be printed. I am leaning towards a digital lambda print.

I want quality, and I am on a budget!

What are my options in the scanning department? I will want to do some retouching to some scans. Some pictures will need to have 2 negs scanned and then a little editing done to combine them.

Is it really drum scan or nothing? and if so.. anyone have a link to CHEEEAP drum scans from friendly people?

Thanks for any input you can give.

Stark

[eric black]

I would go with a drum scan for that size- every once in a while West Coast Imaging has a sale and might provide you with a cost effective alternative. My experience with scanning is that you get what you pay for- less expensive alternatives might end up costing you quite a bit of time getting the output ready for the print in the end. For me time is money so Id rather spend the extra bucks and get a good result than spend hours in front of a computer fixing poor work.

[Ari]

I had a show last spring; 14 prints, all 30x40 inches. I could have gone larger, but the gallery was not that spacious. I printed 8x10s from my 4x5 negs and scanned the 8x10s at 1200 dpi.
I had some very good quality lambda prints made for around $75 each (I asked the lab to sponsor the event, hence the affordable price).
The scans were done by me on an Epson 4870. I did spend a lot of time retouching and adjusting, but that was due to my own inexperience. Next show, I will do the same and expect to spend only about an hour on each photo.

[starkhaze]

totally agree with you Eric.

Ari sorry to say but that doesn't really sound like the way to go.. anyone disagree with that diagnosis?

I found these guys in the netherlands.

http://www.drumscanservice.nl/DRUMSCANSERVICE.html

This seems to be a pretty good deal, and seems like they've got their Sh-t together.

anyone have any experience with them?

[starkhaze]

Ari have you ever seen a show by someone that shoots large format and prints it correctly? It can look amazing. I saw a print by massimo vitali recently.. standing 3 inches from the 40x50 inch print there was not the slightest hint of grain or noise or softness. granted he probably shoots 8x10. even so 4x5 should produce very smooth prints i'd imagine.

[rdenney]

If you want 10x enlargements, your 700 will be running at the very fringes of its capability. You might get acceptable prints, and they might be good enough if you can't afford better. You can only do what you can do--a commitment to extreme quality in prints that size ain't cheap.

Maybe the cheapest way is to shoot 8x10, but I gather that ship has already sailed.

I think you are stuck with having higher-quality scans made for you, despite the cost, if you must have prints that large.

Even when I was working professionally, I would not have accepted an assignment that required a technology that I could not afford, unless I built the cost of adding that capability into my price (not easy to do, of course). But that ship has already sailed, too.

I have seen gallery prints at 8x that were actually quite good, made using an Epson flatbed. But the images were visualized to minimize the loss of tonality from that sort of scanning process. You might consider how to visualize your images so that they don't depend on the depth of tonality that separates flatbeds from more expensive options.

Rick "ask for samples, or start with one image, when testing an unfamiliar lab" Denney

[starkhaze]

yeah good idea to send one neg and get the scan back to test.

[Sean Galbraith]

Is there any point/advantage paying for 16-bit scans if there are no 16-bit printers? (there aren't, right?)

[Don Hutton]

Is there any point/advantage paying for 16-bit scans if there are no 16-bit printers? (there aren't, right?)

Yes - if you intend manipulating anything before you print it, 16 bits will help a great deal in avoiding all sorts of problems. Muck around gently with an 8bit greyscale file and you will see the issues very fast.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Yes, indeed; 16-bits per color will allow much more tonal manipulation before banding occurs. This allows for other-than-perfectly-exposed films (and those films having no more than about 4 stops of dynamic range) to be useful.

Earlier in the thread WCI was mentioned. As their workflow was until recently transparency-only (probably still is if they're yet are using a Tango scanner), I'd suggest the OP investigate other bureaus that might do negs more credibly. Tangos may also be incapable of scanning at a true 16-bit depth. (Don't ask me how much I spent on scans before finding out this tidbit of information).