How large can I print this 4x5 scan?

[jzakko]

Hi guys, I've read lots of varied responses on this topic so I hoped that providing the actual file that will be printed will get more precisely tailored responses. I'm not an experienced printer, just printing one of my shots as a gift for my brother's birthday. I'll be using uprinting.com because they have the best prices and can print very large and I really want to show off the advantage of shooting LF, but since I've never used this site I'd love anybody experienced with it to give me some feedback on the site.

What's the largest size I can print to without perceivable loss in quality? I want it to stand up to scrutiny. I was planning on doing a 40x50", how would that look?

Anyways, here's the download link:

http://we.tl/TqtgawEOK5

thanks

[jbenedict]

Do a little research on print size and viewing distance. 40"x50" is one big print and there a lot of considerations involved. Unless this print is going on a gymnasium wall, it could overwhelm the size of the room.

[Peter De Smidt]

Big prints are very expensive to frame properly. Make sure to consider how you're going to frame it, and how expensive it'll be, before making a huge print.

[Bill Burk]

The size you propose from the pixels you generated is very near what a "newspaper print" would look like: about 85 pixels per inch.

So it would be coarse from a close examination, anyone who knew what they were looking for would see a pixelation.

I'd recommend that you mail the original negative to Lenny Eiger who could provide a true drum scan of the negative and give you a file worthy of 40x50 printing.

At 30 x 24 inches you are causing 120 pixels per inch. This is a normal business printing quality which would survive a close up examination. That would be the limit I would print your scan to.

[Bill Burk]

p.s. Your image is beautiful and would look good printed large like that.

[Tin Can]

I don't know anything about printing that big, but that is a great image and to me, it would good huge, matted on white with thin black frame.

Very good! It reminds me of this, http://cdn.omgfacts.com/2014/6/2/432671ebcd71159f0f458bdd46f0fd9d.jpg

[jzakko]

The size you propose from the pixels you generated is very near what a "newspaper print" would look like: about 85 pixels per inch.


I'm a little confused, the file image dimensions are 9262x7413. I might be mathing wrong (as an undergraduate film major, I haven't mathed in years), but if the wide side has 9262 pixels, doesn't 9262/50=185 pixels per inch? Thanks for the advice.

[jzakko]

Randy, thanks man, I appreciate that.

[koraks]

if the wide side has 9262 pixels, doesn't 9262/50=185 pixels per inch?
That is correct. It's also a nicely sharp scan of a good negative, so I would be confident printing it at a large size.

[Gary Tarbert]

I have done some that large off 4x5 must be drum scanned and a good sharp image to start with , Which from the download it looks like that part is fine , It just worries me the amount of pure black areas may be an issue as you enlarge to that size . Have you ever enlarged a 35mm neg to about 10 inches by 14 inches it would be roughly the same difference , I would aim for 240 pixels per inch , So unless my math is wrong your scan might just fall short , i am happy to be corrected on this , because i am only using regimented formulas that seem to work for me

[fishbulb]

I'm a little confused, the file image dimensions are 9262x7413. I might be mathing wrong (as an undergraduate film major, I haven't mathed in years), but if the wide side has 9262 pixels, doesn't 9262/50=185 pixels per inch? Thanks for the advice.

Yes, that is correct. I frequently use this calculator when trying to calculate these things: http://www.rapidnet.com/~rernster/information_about/print_size_calculator.htm

By the way, just a bit of hopefully constructive criticism - you may want to consider cropping out, or editing out, that rope tie down that is at the very bottom edge of the frame. Not really a big issue either way, but worth considering the image with/without it. Cool image though, very dramatic high contrast.

[paulr]

This one's easy. You can print it as big as you want. 50" will look great. Just make sure you're working with someone who's experienced at preparing photographs for large prints.

This image is very graphic and doesn't rely on fine detail for any of its impact. The only parts of the image with detail that will change perceptibly at large sizes are the trees; even here, the texture of the grain and the prominence of the flair stars makes this detail secondary. This is an image that's going to encourage people to stand back several feet, from which distance it will look great. If people stick their nose into it, it will look plenty good. Not like a contact print, but 50" prints never look like contact prints.

In my experience, 4x5 negatives scanned at this resolution and printed 50" look better than darkroom prints at the same size. I've seen it side by side.
This is not to say that you couldn't do even better with a higher resolution drum scan, but for this image I don't think the improvements would be significant.

[paulr]

And to reiterate what others have said, it will 185 pixels/inch, not 85. This will translate to just over 3.5 lp/mm of maximum resolution at the print surface, which is high enough to look very good.

There is no such thing as pixelation in a digital print, unless it's added as an effect. When digital images are over-enlarged, you see the opposite: pasty areas devoid of noise and detail, which look like a barbie-doll version of the world. You won't have a problem with this image at 50".

[Bill Burk]

I used the page size and resolution figures to calculate, will need to double-check my math but sounds like I erred on the resolution.

But suppose I was right (suppose the original had 4250 pixels across) I would argue that there would be visible pixelation since effective resolution is significantly lower than printer resolution - that would print visible squares if you used a low-resolution file as-is... But you could solve that issue by using a fractal-based application to scale up to a printer file with same or better resolution as the printer and then you would have no visible pixels.

[fishbulb]

Just make sure you're working with someone who's experienced at preparing photographs for large prints.

Yep. Last winter I saw some gallery prints, mostly 20x30" or therabouts, literally for sale in a gallery, that showed noticeable pixelation from 2-3 feet away. They were black and white landscapes so I don't think it was intentional - just a poor job by the printer. They were good images that deserved better, really.

[Tin Can]

Reality is, advice here and anywhere will become very confusing the more we chat.

At some point you will simply have to print as you see best and learn as you go.

I would print a test sample at Costco, 20x30 inches for $9.00. Even if you are not one of the 71 million members, you know one.

[Bill Burk]

pasty areas devoid of noise and detail.
I think that's my definition of pixelation. Squares you can see.

[Bruce Watson]

Big prints are very expensive to frame properly. Make sure to consider how you're going to frame it, and how expensive it'll be, before making a huge print.

And they are hard to move. How will you transport it back from the framer? And how will you move it to your brother's place? Get a tape measure and find the narrowest parts of the vehicle you intend to use and find out if the framed piece will actually fit -- hint, it's not going to bend, even a little.

[Jim Andrada]

Framing/Matting will add size. if it's 40" wide you'd want it to have enough white space around it - maybe 3 to 4 inches. So let's say the thing will be 4 X 5 feet by the time it's all done.

Getting matt board in sizes over 40" wide can be an issue unless you order a 4 x 8 foot piece but think about the logistics! Can you get it through the door, into the vehicle, etc.

I needed a couple of big prints once and I wound up doing them as canvas gallery wraps. I was opposed to the idea but the guy that was framing my show wanted to try it so we did and for the show it worked out just fine. Not as sharp as a real print but the subjects were really strong and didn't depend on fine detail and the 3 x 5 foot images were really impressive and faced the door of the gallery so they were the first things people saw as they walked in! Between the printing and the mounting each one cost over $600 and moving them around was a REAL challenge.

Did I mention that the simple logistics of transporting them was a huge PITA????? Needed to borrow a full size pickup truck.

[Tin Can]

Last time I moved a painting that size, we used an old convertible with the top down and drove slow.

Econoline Cargo Vans hold 4x8 ft sheets easily, no sailing involved. I rent one when needed.

[paulr]

I think that's my definition of pixelation. Squares you can see.

You will never see squares. That's not how either photoshop nor printer drivers interpolate.

[paulr]

I just moved a mounted 40x60 print (no frame) in the back of a subaru impreza. It just barely fit flat, packed in cardboard with about 1" of packing extending beyond the edges.

[Light Guru]

Hi guys, I've read lots of varied responses on this topic so I hoped that providing the actual file that will be printed will get more precisely tailored responses. I'm not an experienced printer, just printing one of my shots as a gift for my brother's birthday. I'll be using uprinting.com because they have the best prices and can print very large and I really want to show off the advantage of shooting LF, but since I've never used this site I'd love anybody experienced with it to give me some feedback on the site.

What's the largest size I can print to without perceivable loss in quality? I want it to stand up to scrutiny. I was planning on doing a 40x50", how would that look?

Going with the cheapest price and wanting it to stand up to scrutiny don't go together well.

[adelorenzo]

A couple of years ago one of my prints was purchased to be used as an award. I printed 30x40 and regretted it. The cost of framing was very high and honestly, some poor soul had to take home this giant, fragile object and find somewhere to put it. It was a corporate prize but still, I wonder if they ever actually hung it anywhere or if it just got tossed somewhere.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that 40x50 is huge especially after you frame it, even in a poster frame (ie. no matting). There are some real practical considerations to think about. I know if someone gave me a print that large as a gift I'd have a heck of a time putting it up anywhere. I'm sure it will look great but something to consider. Maybe print smaller and give it to him nicely framed and matted?

[paulr]

These big sizes are awful to transport and store, but if it's for yourself and you have place on the wall for it, the bad stuff won't come up often.

I have a 40x60 on the wall at home. It was for a customer, but got damaged slightly during mounting so I got to keep it. It would never have occurred to me otherwise to bring home such a behemoth. But once it was on the wall my girlfriend and I were taken by it.

The thing to dread is printing a whole show worth of big prints and not selling them.

By the way, I've been printing the big ones with a one inch white border and mounting on aluminum dibond. Customers have been framing these in shadowbox frames without mats. The frames are simple white or black square wood moulding. They look great like this, and the frame adds very little to the size.

[bob carnie]

I happen to like the look you are describing Paul, maybe a bit more white border at that size.. We use a very rugged wood frame india inked and brace the back.. spacing the print back with walls is nice but actually I prefer just a clear or black spacer with the print close to the glass or plexi.

I am preparing to make a group of big ass prints and from a printer framer viewpoint one must be very careful as these are quite expensive and a real pain to store if they do not sell.

Lately been doing a lot of small prints and loving the experience.

These big sizes are awful to transport and store, but if it's for yourself and you have place on the wall for it, the bad stuff won't come up often.

I have a 40x60 on the wall at home. It was for a customer, but got damaged slightly during mounting so I got to keep it. It would never have occurred to me otherwise to bring home such a behemoth. But once it was on the wall my girlfriend and I were taken by it.

The thing to dread is printing a whole show worth of big prints and not selling them.

By the way, I've been printing the big ones with a one inch white border and mounting on aluminum dibond. Customers have been framing these in shadowbox frames without mats. The frames are simple white or black square wood moulding. They look great like this, and the frame adds very little to the size.

[paulr]

spacing the print back with walls is nice but actually I prefer just a clear or black spacer with the print close to the glass or plexi.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by walls. I believe my framer has been using a 1/4" or 3/8" black spacer.

[Bill Burk]

You will never see squares. That's not how either photoshop nor printer drivers interpolate.

OK I see that. Good there's been progress.

Meanwhile my math mistake was the units... I didn't notice the display was in cm not inches.

[Bill Burk]

My mom used to make pieces as large as she could fit in the trunk of the Plymouth Satellite...

As a kid I remember getting hauled off to the lumberyard where she would pick up more Gypsum board...

[bob carnie]

We use acid free thick foam to line the inside of the frames and this allows us to put the image deep into the frame.. Need a deep frame of course.. Our standard frame we have milled to our specs allow for deep placement..

We also have used the wood itself cut to thin strips and this works as well.
Once you put walls in , you are pretty much commited to this frame.. I do this for some of my personal work but try to not do it with larger shows.
as the walls are impossible to come out clean to get at the glass.

so ... glass goes down...place the walls along the sides.. usually glued in..then place the mounted print ontop... paper it in.


Can you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by walls. I believe my framer has been using a 1/4" or 3/8" black spacer.

[Tyler Boley]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I've always wondered.. I have never framed with wood for other reasons.. but-
we go to such great lengths to keep the foamcore, the adhesives, the mattes, everything acid free.. then frame with wood? Is there acid free wood?
Probably a stupid question, but I'm not immune

[fishbulb]

Does the wood even touch the print for most people? For my framed prints, the only thing touching the print is the matboard, and whatever backing material the print is mounted on.

[bob carnie]

Wood counts for 95% of all framing and I have been doing it for years at my shop.. Metal is not desirable.. All my woods are india ink so they can be sanded and re stained with india ink ( same speedball ink used in Carbon Printing) for the purists.

Usually glass matt, print , back board acid free foam.. all combined with acid free tape so the wood never gets near the print.


Does the wood even touch the print for most people? For my framed prints, the only thing touching the print is the matboard, and whatever backing material the print is mounted on.

[Tyler Boley]

whether or not it touches is sometimes not the problem...
Obviously if it's sealed that's another thing.
Metal is not desirable?!?!

was just askin.. back to your thread

[Drew Wiley]

You can easily isolate any acid or tannin problem in the frame either via a liner or by coating the moulding rabbet with true shellac (not to be confused with varnish or lacquer). I enjoy making hardwood frames, but finding or milling moulding that is straight enough for big prints requires some care. Painted or faux-finished frame sticks like those typically distributed by framing wholesalers are generally made from species like poplar or ramin, which aren't very attractive woods without such overcoats. Real hardwoods have to be carefully cured by a specialty supplier so they don't twist or warp afterwards. Not every moulding or hardwood
supplier does this properly. You need to shop around. And of course, some of us prefer to boycott anything potentially classified as an endangered. But at the moment, I just wish I had some time to enjoy my woodworking toys.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, Bob... someday I will have to drive up there and show you a sample or two of my own split-toned whatever, with individually complemented frame etc.
The big wholesale framer here (who I supply equip to) was addicted to ebonizing, but then switched to Black Cat to save time. Slightly different look. Liming
is also a nice option the other direction, with various avenues. Thirty-five years ago I first found work in this town doing faux finishing repairs while we were
remodeling some of these turn-of-the-century architectural marvels around here. Julia Morgan employed the same craftsmen locally as she did building Hearst
Castle, and Maybeck was prevalent locally too. It almost seems like a crime altering anything on those buildings, but eventually they just had to get the electric
and plumbing updated. So I had to get real good real fast cooking up my own finishes and learning how to apply them. Now I have customers who do historic
structure refinishing on a larger scale; but modern equipment makes if far far easier.