Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Normal file size????????

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    350

    Normal file size????????

    If I'm going to make a 16x20 size print from my 4x5 neg what is a "normal "file size?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pittsfield, MA
    Posts
    784

    Re: Normal file size????????

    For me, it's around 4" x 5".

    However if you're printing digitally, you should ask the lab doing the printing, as printer resolutions vary, with the range of 240 to 400 dpi being most common.

  3. #3
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: Normal file size????????

    If you file your negative carrier out to the size of 3 14/16" by 4 13/16" you should be able to print the rebate without the negative falling out of the carrier. Alternately you could use a glass carrier with no filing.

  4. #4
    Mike Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    681

    Re: Normal file size????????

    Image size or file size?

    As mentioned image size for print should be targeted for the specific printer (around 300 ppi), so a 16" x 20" image would be...well you can do the math.

    But most file formats are compressed so the file size varies with the image. An image that's 90% clear blue sky will compress much more than a complicated busy detailed image.

    So there is no normal file size.

    If you're sending it out for printing and don't know the native PPI of the printer I would make the image 300 ppi (4800x6000).

    ...Mike

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    775

    Re: Normal file size????????

    It depends what kind of printer you're using. It's probably best to ask your lab.

    For my Epson prints from film scans I never go below 240ppi. I drum-scan my film so for 4x5 resolution is not in short supply. For prints up to 40x50, I generally go with 360ppi.

    So a 16x20in. print at 360ppi would be around a 120MB file. It should look great as long as your scanner gave you enough pixels

    For scans from 6x7cm. I make the larger prints at 240ppi and they still look great.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Normal file size????????

    If you're scanning, scan it as large as your scanner and system will reasonably manage. Make a master file, don't oversharpen or do anything too destructive, back this up. Then resize to print as needed, with sharpening and tonal adjustments to fit. Save as a new file, with size and date notation, for future use,

  7. #7
    Barry Kirsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Brookfield, Vic., Aust.
    Posts
    536

    Re: Normal file size????????

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    If you're scanning, scan it as large as your scanner and system will reasonably manage. Make a master file, don't oversharpen or do anything too destructive, back this up. Then resize to print as needed, with sharpening and tonal adjustments to fit. Save as a new file, with size and date notation, for future use,
    This raises an interesting point: I understand that when an image file is resized, a degree of interpolation is involved whereby information in adjacent pixels is sampled and applied to pixels involved in the resize. Some claim that this process involves loss of detail in the resized print, and it is better to set scanning resolution at the time of scanning, taking account of the negative size, the degree of enlargement and the printing resolution.

    I previously used the method described by Frank, with good results. However some of my earlier LF negs I've had scanned by a lab were all done according to desired print size, i.e. separate scans were done according to whether I wanted 8x10 or 16x20 prints. I believe this is standard practice.

    I guess the pivotal factor relating to final print quality is the degree of enlargement involved. Would I be right in assuming that enlargements of say, 3x or 4x may show no visible difference between the two methods, but larger enlargements of say, 5x or more may show some degradation in prints from resized files?

    I'd be interested in peoples' thoughts.

    Barry.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Normal file size????????

    Making a file larger using interpolation -- yes you will lose quality. Depends how much.

    Going down in size -- in theory, anything you do to your data is destructive, since you now have to average one new pixel to represent what were once more pixels.... but Photoshop has gotten smarter and better at doing this, and, since you're going smaller, it usually looks fine. And almost everything needs to get shrunken down one way or the other....

    The default interpolation method is BiCubic. You can experiment with alternative methods by changing them in the General screen of Photoshop's preferences. It's a pull-down menu with helpful hints.

    It's really hard to scan exactly to size in practice. The value of making crops and adjustments outweighs the very minor file degradation that happens.

    Every move you make in Photoshop is destructive actually. The less moves you make the better, think about being a hunter and moving stealthily through the woods -- make one move do the work of three -- i.e. don't keep experimenting over and over and then saving the image -- instead work out your moves then go back to the earlier history state and apply them in the most efficient sequence. And you can do most adjustments in Curves, don't use the clumsier controls multiple times instead.

    Don't be too anal about it, all of this is very subtle and you might not ever notice if I didn't mention it! But the tendency of large format photographers is to fool themselves into thinking they are nearing perfection is quite quaint and cute to see....

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    665

    Re: Normal file size????????

    There are simply too many factors to be abe to describe a normal file size. I have found that drum scans of 8oMBs or greater, at 14 bit, and in tiff format, and assuming output of not greater than 300PPI is my starting place for great 16x20s. But I have seen files 40% smaller in same format produce quality prints at 200PPI output. However, some images require higher res scans and larger file sizes to produce desired results. Case in point was a very dense color image where we settled on a 210MB file to produce adequate 20x24s. Generally Chromira and Durst Lambda printers seem to produce excellent result with smaller file sizes. As Frank points out, overshoot your mark and than downsample as necessary, particularly if you might want larger images. Hope I didn't overshoot your question.

  10. #10
    Barry Kirsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Brookfield, Vic., Aust.
    Posts
    536

    Re: Normal file size????????

    Quote Originally Posted by pdmoylan View Post
    Hope I didn't overshoot your question.
    No, very helpful, great. Thanks Frank and PD for helpful responses. I'm rather new to digital processing - dabbled in it in the past, but now I don't have a darkroom have to get serious about it. Thanks again.

    Baz.

Similar Threads

  1. Jpeg Compression????
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 3-Jun-2008, 02:48
  2. LF lens manufacturer philosophy
    By Chris Bitmead in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 8-Oct-2007, 01:12
  3. Selecting Scanner File Size for Printer Resolution?
    By Michael Heald in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9-Oct-2006, 20:49
  4. Photoshop File Size Limitation
    By Scott Fleming in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16-Sep-2006, 11:29
  5. Does larger digital file = greater amount of useful data???
    By Bill Glickman in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2004, 17:44

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •