Anyone print large using a Flatbed scanner?

[rustyair]

Does anyone does the scanning with a flatbed scanner and print very large (around 40x50")?

I'm using a Epson v700 and have a couple of 4x5 films that I want to print really big and thinking of getting a wet mount kit from Scanscience.

Drum scanning would be ideal but it's too pricy for me at this moment. Anyone here have done the large print with a v700/v750 or other flatbed scanner and wet mounting?

Thanks,

[minesix66]

I would suggest a professional drum scan. Do a search on ebay. I paid 40.00, and it was worth it. I was in the same situation as you. I compared the drum scan to my Epson scan using the better scanning holder without the fluid and there is a big difference.

[mrkauffman]

What kind of quality are you expecting from your print? I think thats the most important question.

I scan on a v750 (not with the wet mount) and i take 6x7 negatives and print to 24x36 without a problem. thats in color.

Id imagine printing a 4x5 scan that i have to 40x50 would be no problem, but dont look at it with a 8x loupe either, thats more magnification than it was probably ever intended for.

Sooo, id say give it a shot. Make sure you have a good decent scan to start with.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes with a flatbed scanner like a Kodak Creo IQsmart-no way with a 750.

[xavier deltell]

Yes, i do. Starting from 4x5 slide scanned with Eversmart Pro II, I print up to 60x50.

[vinny]

Wet mounting won't help raise resolution. Hell, you can make a print as big as you want but it'll look like crap (to me and anyone else who has seen good mural-sized work). I wouldn't recommend it. I own the epson and a drum scanner.

[rustyair]

Thanks all. I'm gonna look more into both drum scanning and wet mount.

[Vaughn]

I recently had one of my 4x10 B&W negative scanned on a V700 (or V750 -- scanned by placing the neg right on the glass) and it was printed (inkjet) at 30"x72". Pretty dang good, and a with drum scanners and the like even sharper prints can be made. The six foot long print (plus another foot or so of black around the image area) is hanging in the stairwell -- in front of you as you go down the stairs to the rest of the gallery. As one enters the stairway, and to one's right, is a 4x10 carbon print from the same negative. Fun comparison! One can only get so close to the large print as one descends the stairs; one can put their nose up to the small carbon print -- but there is no glass over it, so no nose grease on the print, please.

I have shown the image before, but here it is again.

Girders, Golden Gate Bridge, 2012
Scanned 4x10 carbon print

[Frank Petronio]

I have a 32x40 from an Epson that looks pretty good but it was from an 8x10 neg so it is cheating.

But... the expense of making a large print - and framing it - means you're already spending several hundred bucks so why skimp on the scanning?

I also have a 30x40 Iris from a 800dpi Kurziwiel Xerox flatbed, circa 1991, hanging in the garage, it looks good too but not like a modern print! Nobody will stop you from making a big print....

[Leonard Evens]

I haven't made any prints that large using my Epson V700 scanner, but I would be willing to.

It all depends on how close you expect viewers to get to the print. In principle, the typical viewer will put him/herself at about the diagonal of the print distance from the print. If so, he/she can see the same amount of detail as would be visible when viewing an 8 x 10 print at 10 to 12 inches. So you can divide the necessary resolution for the 8 x 10 print by the ratio of the viewing distances. If you can produce enough resolution by scanning for an 8 x 10 print, you should be okay whatever the size of the print.

Of course grain sniffers will stick their noses up against a print, no matter how large it is. People like that can never be satisfied. The limitations of film and lens resolution will be obvious even if the print were a perfect reproduction of what is on the negative.