Serious Digital Printing DPI

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am finally finishing grad school next semester and have decided to produce a 1 off book for my thesis show. I considered making a book with real silver prints but the cost is out of reach for me at the moment and the process of dry mounting them is a bit too complicated at this time. A good friend/mentor has suggested making the book through digital printing which will reduce the costs significantly. He has also mentioned how good hahnemule paper products have gotten and that with proper preparation the prints should look up to snuff.

The book will contain a health mix of 4x5, medium formats, and 35mm. I have decided on the 17" wide rolls of paper so the pages will be 17"x20". A pretty big book. I am just now trying to figure out what that means as far as actual print size. For 35mm I think they would be 15"x10" (actual image size). I think I can get away with a 4800 DPI scan for the 35mm prints but is there anything gained from going to 9800?

I could also use some paper recommendations besides hahnemule. Is the Ilford paper comparable or is hahnemule the absolute king here? I need a paper stock that will be substantial for such a large book but that is also double sided to keep my layouts flexible.

[chassis]

4800dpi scanning resolution with a 24mmx36mm film image will print something around 24" on the long side at 300dpi. Your target of 15" is, in principle, manageable with 4800dpi scanning resolution. 9800dpi scanning resolution is more than the minimum needed, but offers the potential for downsampling. There are experts here on this topic.

The 300dpi print output resolution is in the ball park, but also something of a judgment call and depends on the printing hardware, ink and paper. Bob Carnie here is one of the resident experts on this topic.

[Peter De Smidt]

Chassis is right. All of this depends on a lot of things, especially the printing process. Are you going to print on matte or glossy paper? If matte, then print resolution will be limited by the paper surface. Epson printers can operate optimally at 720 dpi in the input file. The other most used resolution is 360 dpi. (Canon printers are 600 and 300, respectively). Will you see the difference on glossy paper using the highest settings on the printer? Maybe. Ctein, if I remember rightly, claimed to see a difference going up to 480 dpi, but that was awhile ago, and some printers might be better. If it is going to make a difference, everything, from the original negative quality, the scanner, post production, printing....would all have to be extremely good. Now you have a pk paper in a book. What's more important, absolute detail, or hand feel, resistance to finger prints, ..... Personally, I'd go with an MK paper. The paper search is more important than many of the other questions. It has to be thin enough to work in a book..... In my opinion, decide on all of the other issues first, such as paper type..... Now scan/process/... one frame. Test the output before scanning all of the frames. Do you see a valuable enough difference between the various methods to justify the added work? That way, you'll be making all of the decisions yourself, instead of listening to people who you have no idea of whether you'd agree with their perceptual judgments of the actual prints.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am very new to digital workflow so this is already a very big undertaking. I am giving myself a big head start, the book needs to be completed by the second week of April. I hope to have a paper selected by the end of December. I am not sure what is meant by PK vs MK paper. Can anyone clarify please?

[Peter De Smidt]

I Pk= photo , i.e glossy ink. Mk=matte ink. If you’re new, just go for 360 dpi at final print size if using Epson. 300dpi if Canon or HP.

[Oren Grad]

I am finally finishing grad school next semester and have decided to produce a 1 off book for my thesis show. I considered making a book with real silver prints but the cost is out of reach for me at the moment and the process of dry mounting them is a bit too complicated at this time....

Have you compared the actual cost of materials for inkjet printing to that of materials for silver printing, taking into account necessary auxiliaries like chemicals for silver and ink cartridges for inkjet, and assuming like-for-like comparisons (e.g., FB vs FB paper)? You may find that they're a lot closer than you think.

If you are experienced and comfortable printing in silver then I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that you print your book in silver, on RC paper. Inkjet has a steep learning curve to get high-quality results and is an expensive medium just like silver is. Scanning, too, is a demanding craft with many traps for the inexperienced. It seems that you are only just getting started in both. If your goal is to be sure of having a high-quality thesis presentation with a minimum of grief, now is not the time to be learning two new, demanding processes from scratch. If scanning-plus-inkjet is to be your path, then November is not a "big head start" for a product needed in April.

[Jac@stafford.net]

4800dpi scanning resolution with a 24mmx36mm film image

Help me here. Is there really a 4800dpi (or ppi) resolution available via scanning, is it any good, and regardless how does a printer handle it? I would think a printer would re-sample (destructive?) to its own capability.

Math is not adequate to describe the whole problem.

[Alan9940]

I'm going with Oren here...digital printing is not inexpensive and requires a very steep learning curve to achieve first-class results. IMO, in order to achieve the best results you will need to have your film drum scanned. Have you looked at the cost for doing this? Hint: it's not cheap! Good quality printer paper is really no cheaper than silver paper for the darkroom. I'm assuming that since you mentioned "silver prints" that your thesis work is B&W; you don't mention any specific "color" (warm/neutral/cold) you're looking for, but, if warm tone, IMO you'd be hard pressed to beat Ilford MGWT RC with a slight bit of selenium toning just for archival purposes. The pages will lay nice and flat in the book and will look beautiful, if processed correctly.

[Peter De Smidt]

Help me here. Is there really a 4800dpi (or ppi) resolution available via scanning, is it any good, and regardless how does a printer handle it? I would think a printer would re-sample (destructive?) to its own capability.

Math is not adequate to describe the whole problem.

Yes, yes, and it depends on the output size and the type of printer. As I said, Epson printers, in the highest quality mode, can accept a file up to 720 ppi at output size. (This is not to be confused with the dpi output specification of the printer! There is not a 1 to 1 mapping of input file values to dots of ink.) Other sizes are converted to that size by the printer. So, scanning at 1440 will give a 2x enlargement, 2160 a 3x enlargement, 2880 a 4x enlargement....without require the printer to do an re-sizing.

I scan 35mm at 6000 spi on a scanner that can really reach that level. I do so because that gives the best rendition of photo grain with my scanner.

[faberryman]

What film scanners do you have available?

[RodinalDuchamp]

Have you compared the actual cost of materials for inkjet printing to that of materials for silver printing, taking into account necessary auxiliaries like chemicals for silver and ink cartridges for inkjet, and assuming like-for-like comparisons (e.g., FB vs FB paper)? You may find that they're a lot closer than you think.

If you are experienced and comfortable printing in silver then I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that you print your book in silver, on RC paper. Inkjet has a steep learning curve to get high-quality results and is an expensive medium just like silver is. Scanning, too, is a demanding craft with many traps for the inexperienced. It seems that you are only just getting started in both. If your goal is to be sure of having a high-quality thesis presentation with a minimum of grief, now is not the time to be learning two new, demanding processes from scratch. If scanning-plus-inkjet is to be your path, then November is not a "big head start" for a product needed in April.


I have access to a few resources for free my only out of pocket expense will be paper. I am also working with a highly experienced mentor step by step.

I am asking questions here before I get started. I still have the option of printing silver but that also introduces additional costs like dry mounting sheets to each other if I want a 2 sided spreadm. RC I don't believe would handle the heat well.

[Pere Casals]

https://99designs.es/blog/tips/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/

[Oren Grad]

I have access to a few resources for free my only out of pocket expense will be paper. I am also working with a highly experienced mentor step by step.

I am asking questions here before I get started. I still have the option of printing silver but that also introduces additional costs like dry mounting sheets to each other if I want a 2 sided spreadm. RC I don't believe would handle the heat well.

RC can be dry mounted, laminated, etc.

Anyway, I'd make one last suggestion. Ask your mentor if he or she can scan one of your 35mm negatives and make one 10x15 inkjet print for you, using whatever scanner and printer are at your disposal and whatever paper he or she recommends, to show you what is possible. Make a silver print of the same negative yourself, to your satisfaction. Compare the two. If you like the inkjet print - you don't have to like it better than the silver print, you just have to like it enough to be comfortable with it for your thesis presentation - then have at it!

Whichever way you go, good luck and enjoy!

[RodinalDuchamp]

RC can be dry mounted, laminated, etc.

Anyway, I'd make one last suggestion. Ask your mentor if he or she can scan one of your 35mm negatives and make one 10x15 inkjet print for you, using whatever scanner and printer are at your disposal and whatever paper he or she recommends, to show you what is possible. Make a silver print of the same negative yourself, to your satisfaction. Compare the two. If you like the inkjet print - you don't have to like it better than the silver print, you just have to like it enough to be comfortable with it for your thesis presentation - then have at it!

Whichever way you go, good luck and enjoy!


If I had no budget limit, I would 100% make the book with silver prints. However, being a broke and I mean broke grad student the digital option still seems to be viable since I really don't have to worry about buying printers, scanners, or ink. I have seen some amazing digital results not saying that they arrive at the same quality of silver but for this project I think it should get close enough. The alternative is hanging 15-20 prints which will be much more expensive and what will I do with all that framed work afterwards. the book seems more reasonable and will function as a sort of portfolio after the show.

[Peter De Smidt]

Listening to too many gurus can get confusing. I'd simply follow whatever the person you're working with suggests and is familiar with.

[interneg]

Having made quite a few one-off books as well as doing separations & design for offset printed photobooks... One, don't make it too big - unless you know what you are doing bookbinding-wise, there's a better than good chance it'll fall apart pretty fast - does it need to be bigger than 9.5x12" or even 8x10?
Two, the double sided papers have to be chosen for grain direction - the 220gsm photo rag is nice, but watch out for offsetting from opposing pages after binding. There is a double sided Moab paper that is available in rolls as far as I know - the 190gsm weight is the one you want. Alternative is to tip-in prints made on one paper into the book printed on a different paper, but unless you use very light papers for the images, you'll need to design your binding to compensate for the thickness of the prints.
Three, I'd seriously suggest you look at 'sewn boards' bindings - it's not technically difficult, but looks professional & doesn't need expensive equipment & is durable.
If all you have to scan your negs is an Epson flatbed, that's going to be a bit of a problem if you want the best possible results. You should be aiming to be outputting files in the 400-600ppi range at final size for the best results with current inkjet technology - especially in the book format where people tend to look much more closely than on a gallery wall.

[Pere Casals]

If all you have to scan your negs is an Epson flatbed, that's going to be a bit of a problem if you want the best possible results.

Yes, but only for the 35mm shots OP mentions, for that a dedicated roll film scanner like a plustek 8xxx could be recommended, for example. For also mentioned MF and up it's a different situation...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, yes, and it depends on the output size and the type of printer. As I said, Epson printers, in the highest quality mode, can accept a file up to 720 ppi at output size. (This is not to be confused with the dpi output specification of the printer! There is not a 1 to 1 mapping of input file values to dots of ink.) Other sizes are converted to that size by the printer. So, scanning at 1440 will give a 2x enlargement, 2160 a 3x enlargement, 2880 a 4x enlargement....without require the printer to do an re-sizing.

I scan 35mm at 6000 spi on a scanner that can really reach that level. I do so because that gives the best rendition of photo grain with my scanner.

This is in essence why I chose 4200dpi for my 4x5 scans. It is 14X300dpi since I use Canon. I then down sample to 300dpi at the size I want to print. This may not be the most exquisite way of doing it, but it does work for me, especially in post-processing. I almost never run into issues with processing my photo to final image short of screwing up the color cast on occasion and over doing something like saturation and such. No posterization etc. Granted they are huge files when I am done, but the print file size is manageable. I just keep the huge working file for archiving unless I make a print run of something then I keep that print file.

[interneg]

Yes, but only for the 35mm shots OP mentions, for that a dedicated roll film scanner like a plustek 8xxx could be recommended, for example. For also mentioned MF and up it's a different situation...

I'm slightly surprised at the OP's lack of access to high end scanners - especially at a postgraduate level, most art schools etc have at least Hasselblad/ Imacon or high end CCD. And as for no difference - the image on the left (both zoomed to 100%) will support 2.8-3.4x at the highest inkjet resolutions, the one on the right is an Epson that can focus, flat out at what's supposed to be 2400ppi. And the scanner on the left can go much, much higher in resolution.
https://imgur.com/a/e44pStA

More to the point, at a postgrad level especially, you want to produce the best work you can at the best possible level of quality - unless the cheap flatbed aesthetic is part of that - because that work may play a significant role in establishing you as an artist, or at least getting you some relevant work that pays the bills.

[Pere Casals]

postgraduate level


Interneg, in 35mm a hassie extracts x10 more optical pixels (if the shot has the IQ) than a V850, in LF a V850 extracts more optical pixels than a hassie. This is because each machine has different limiting factors for each format. The V850 has an scan width of 5.9" and this limits optical performance in 35mm while the hassie can zoom in to a 1" scan width.

But for sheets limiting factor of the hassie is the low pixel count of its linear sensor: 8k, while the V850 sporting a 40k is not limited by the sensor. I'm pretty sure you can count from zero to 40.800, so you should understand what happens.

For MF it happens this, you know, this test is fair: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

Of course a hassie is an amazing pro machine and a V850 not, but V850 has a way stronger linear sensor, that is not used in the hassie because it's slow for a pro machine.

With that I've said all...

[interneg]

Interneg, in 35mm a hassie extracts x10 more optical pixels than a V850, in LF a V850 extracts more optical pixels than a hassie. This is because each machine has different limiting factors for each format. The V850 has an scan width of 5.9" and this limits optical performance in 35mm while the hassie can zoom in to a 1" scan width.

But for sheets limiting factor of the hassie is the low pixel count of its linear sensor: 8k, while the V850 sporting a 40k is not limited by the sensor. I'm pretty sure you can count from zero to 40.800, so you should understand what happens.

For MF it happens this, you know, this test is fair: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

Of course a hassie is an amazing pro machine and a V850 not, but V850 has a way stronger linear sensor, that is not used in the hassie because it's slow for a pro machine.

That scan on the left was at 2040ppi. Both the same negative. QED.

[Pere Casals]

That scan on the left was at 2040ppi. Both the same negative. QED.

Perhaps, but in any case in that shot the V850 was scanning 5.9" and the hassie 1". When the hassie scans 4" it loses the advantage. Read well my post.

[interneg]

Perhaps, but in any case in that shot the V850 was scanning 5.9" and the hassie 1". When the hassie scans 4" it loses the advantage. Read well my post.

I'll repeat this for your benefit: the left hand image was scanned with the X5 set to 2040ppi, the right hand image from the Epson was downsampled to match. That's the reality of both of these scanners.

[Pere Casals]

I'll repeat this for your benefit: the left hand image was scanned with the X5 set to 2040ppi, the right hand image from the Epson was downsampled to match. That's the reality of both of these scanners.

That may be the reality for 35mm. For MF both are close, and for LF the EPSON resolves more.

The EPSON cannot zoom in to a 1" strip for 35mm (like the Hasselblad does) and the EPSON sensor always covers 5.9", for this reason the EPSON is way worse for 35mm: 2400 vs 6300 effective dpi. This is the reality and this is true.

But the EPSON does not experiment a perfomance loss at 4" scan width, it has the same 2400 effective dpi for 35mm than for 4x5, at the end for 35mm it sees 4 strips wide. But the Hasselblad for 4" scan width it experiments a severe performance loss from the effective 6300 to 1800, or if you want to no more than 2048. Just divide 8192p/4"? So there you have your limiting factor !!

Interneg, the hassies are incredible for 35mm, really amazing, but sadly this is not a Leica forum...

35mm: EPSON 2400: / X5: 6300

4x5": EPSON 2400: / X5: 1800 (or 2048 hardware, if you want)

Those are the facts.

[interneg]

Which bit of this do you refuse to understand: the image is a section of a negative scanned on the '4x5' settings at maximum resolution (2040ppi)? The difference is rather like how a disposable camera lens' absolute high contrast resolution at f11 (or the designed aperture) probably outresolves most LF lenses at f45, but no one would suggest that a moulded plastic lens is better at rendering an actual scene.

[Pere Casals]

Which bit of this do you refuse to understand: the image is a section of a negative scanned on the '4x5' settings at maximum resolution (2040ppi)? The difference is rather like how a disposable camera lens' absolute high contrast resolution at f11 (or the designed aperture) probably outresolves most LF lenses at f45, but no one would suggest that a moulded plastic lens is better at rendering an actual scene.

interneg, instead showing 35mm scans, show a side by side of 4x5" scans, have it ?

do it like the Petapixel guy...

[interneg]

Here's sections of a 4x5 at 2040ppi & resized 2400ppi, do you want to continue to deny the blatantly obvious? At both of those resolutions, it will not matter what your source format is, if all you need to see is the resolution of detail for comparative analysis.

184453

[Pere Casals]

184453

no comment...

[neil poulsen]

I don't know if all your prints are black and white or not. But for those that are, and if you digitally print, I would recommend using Quad Tone RIP. This excellent software replaces Epson drivers and does an excellent job of (only) printing B&W. It gives you many options for print color, and if desired, split printing.

You might ask your mentor about this software; likely, he'll be familiar with it. See the following link . . .

www.quadtonerip.com

[RodinalDuchamp]

Ok everyone thank you for your feedback, I am not sure why interneg believes I don't have access to an Imacon scanner but I do. I have decided to scan everything at 4800 and scale it down as needed. I will create a new thread regarding my photo papers as this is proving to be a big first decision.

[interneg]

Ok everyone thank you for your feedback, I am not sure why interneg believes I don't have access to an Imacon scanner but I do. I have decided to scan everything at 4800 and scale it down as needed. I will create a new thread regarding my photo papers as this is proving to be a big first decision.

Ah - it wasn't clear from your initial post - & 4800 is an oft cited resolution on Epsons. Carry on as before! :)

[RodinalDuchamp]

Ah - it wasn't clear from your initial post - & 4800 is an oft cited resolution on Epsons. Carry on as before! :)

Thank you! And all of your posts were very insightful I appreciate your responses.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I use 4200 on my V850.

[Pere Casals]

184520

To obtain a very good result with an EPSON we have to scan at higher resolution and later downsampling if we want.

While a Pro scanner tends to deliver a digitally optimized image with the EPSONs we always have some job to do in Ps to get a sound image, the sharpening and the downsampling (use "bicubic, ideal for reductions" choice) will be critical.

The V700 - 850 has two fixed scan widths, 5.9" with the highres lens, or 8" with the lowres lens that is used automaticly when the scanner detects the area guide.

With selected 5.9" scan width the EPSON delivers 2400 average effective dpi in all formats, from 35mm to 5x7", it delivers exactly the same performance in all those formats.

While for 35mm 2400 effective can be low in some situations, for sheets this is a really good performace, and for MF it's more that correct.

Interneg says that the 2048 hardware dpi of the X5 (1800 effective) in 4x5" are much better than the 2400 effective of the EPSON. I don't agree, absolutely, with that. We have discussed that too much, to the point that I think it's time to make a side by side comparison to enlight what an EPSON does or not in LF, as it is nearly the single suitable tool that most of us can get, without going to very old gear that may involve severe service shortcomings.

So I'll prepare a side by side, including Velvia with multiexposure...

Interneg, if you want I'll send you the test sheets, give me an address by PM.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

If I were to scan at 6400dpi and say do a 2x2 binning at scan time. I can reduce noise, but will I retain quality of 6400? The main purpose/goal would be to have a smaller file, but with quality of larger file if possible.

[Pere Casals]

If I were to scan at 6400dpi and say do a 2x2 binning at scan time. I can reduce noise, but will I retain quality of 6400? The main purpose/goal would be to have a smaller file, but with quality of larger file if possible.

I've not an answer, you should test it and see, but let me describe some involved factors:

With the V850 if you scan at 6400dpi you don't have a 6400 effective dpi quality, you can get a maximum 2900 effective dpi in the sensor direction and 2300 in the movement direction, some passes will delliver a 10% less effective rating depending on the sensor position on the target or vibrations, or who knows...

That excessive dpi brings on excessive file sizes (that today are less excessive than in the past), but it also prevents aliasing artifacts allowing for a more effective sharpening later.

A sort of binning is what scanner does when scanning is not performed at maximum resolution. The scanner can do that in two ways 1) it can use a feature of the sensor that averages the analog value of several pixels to deliver a single analog value for them to the A/D converter, or 2) it can average digitalized values of individual pixels, I don't know how the V850 does it... but if using a binning in the scanner software then the binning is made digitally for sure.

A binning made "after the A/D conversion" will lower the A/D conversion noise by averaging several A/D conversions, compared to making an analog average in the sensor and then making a single conversion.

I guess that A/D noise is low, but it would be interesting to measure it in a dense area. To make that measurement I would use a gray smooth target, and I'd place it well out of focus on the scanner, then we would measure the variance of the hue/lightness of a crop and compare both ways (binning vs scanner lower dpi).

Let me describe my workflow with the V:

> Use a SSD disk (it can be 64 GB only, cheap) for recording scanned images. Or clone your system disk to a SSD, before that move big data to regular HDD if not wanting to pay a big SSD. Your problems with big files will evaporate, and Ps will start fast.

> I scan at a resolution that will be higher than the one that I want to use in Ps edition. Always I take all histogram so I override the suggested DR end points on the histrogram, I always scan 16 bit. Save always TIFF because if not only 8 bits are saved.

> Edit always in 16Bits per channel, I perform a mild USM sharpening and then I reduce to the edition size selecting "Bicubic, ideal for reductions". Then I save a copy as my scanned original in TIFF.

> Edit the image. Save a second copy Edited, 16 bits, top quality, in TIFF.

> Make release image. Proofing, adjustments for the display medium (for print or monitor or...).

> Image size reduction to the diplay medium (pixels in the monitor, printer ppi), using bicubic (ideal for reductions). Another USM touch, a bit depending on the viewing distance. 8 bit per channel conversion. Save a third TIFF copy. Save a 4rt copy in jpg if necessary.

Some people say that printers have very good algorithms and they prefer to not send a pixel for each printer pixel, but a +140% larger ppi and allowing printer optimize the size reduction. I think that those people are not weird, but anyway what will happen will depend on the particular printer, so for best prediction of the result I prefer sending one to one pix.

[jnantz]

im sorry, i haven't read the whole thread but
your digital book will end up costing more than your hand printed book easily
if you add it everything .. scanning, tweaking, printing &c
unless you get light jet/ digital c prints made of all your prints and don't go overboard with your scanning / tweeking.
a lot of people think that you can really tell the difference when things are printed small
but to be honest unless you are printing something gigantic i really wouldn't go overboard
( unless you want to of course ! )

making a 1-off hand made book is not hard, it can be done easily without much fuss.
japanese bound books are the easiest to make, and you don't even need to stitch them
you can make it a "post binding" . the only "tricky" part of the whole operation is
gluing/pasting the top edge of your prints to a receiver page. but even that isn't hard..
the next hard thing is adding thickness to the spine where the binding will be so
the block of the book doesn't fan and it lies flat ( unless you want it to fan than it is even easier ! )
you have to add thickness to compensate for the thickness of the prints.
there are online tutorials on making japanese bound books, there are easy to follow books
on making them too that can be picked up for not too much $$ through online sellers like amazon..
closed spine is a little more time consuming. you need to make a stitching rack and sew the pages
together and glue them into a spine but its not really that hard .. i've been making open and closed spine books
since i was IDK 15 or 16 years old .. it just takes a little effort.

library supply houses like gaylord brothers will easily sell you the materials you need
or places like harcourt bindery in boston. there are book presses bought cheap but you can just use
something heavy ( look for a book called books boxes and portfolios )
you can get book-board to make your covers from art supply stores
and they will even cut them down to size... wheat paste is cheap and easy ( lineco sells it
also purchased online cheap and easy ) ...

IDK the idea that pigment printed images cost less than darkroom prints is a myth ..
light jet is cheap as dirt by comparison and RC prints glue easily to rag paper
have fun with your project !
john

[Pere Casals]

the idea that pigment printed images cost less than darkroom prints is a myth ..


a digital image also can be printed in photopaper with a lambda, frontier or lightjet...

but a hand printed book it's something very special !

[jnantz]

a digital image also can be printed in photopaper with a lambda, frontier or lightjet...

but a hand printed book it's something very special !

yup :) that's why i suggested light jet.. ( i'm terrible knowing the names of its cousins )
cheap and easy and no fuss if that is the route one wants to go ..
IDK maybe its me but scanning at 4800dpi &c for a 5x7 or even 8x10 print seems like overkill..
and
yup :) making by hand is a lot of fun and worth the time it takes .. :)

[Pere Casals]

yup :) making by hand is a lot of fun and worth the time it takes .. :)

John, my problem is another one: the amount of paper boxes I've to spend to get a nice result :) , I hope I'll learn a bit...

Let me add that lightjets also are used to print (rather C) BW photopaper, Ilford Lab Direct prints in RC (gloss and semi), until 10" they use a Frontier and a Lightjet from there, but Bob prints also FB with the Lambda, allowing for a top Q result.

[jnantz]

John, my problem is another one: the amount of paper boxes I've to spend to get a nice result :) , I hope I'll learn a bit...

Let me add that lightjets also are used to print (rather C) BW photopaper, Ilford Lab Direct prints in RC (gloss and semi), until 10" they use a Frontier and a Lightjet from there, but Bob prints also FB with the Lambda, allowing for a top Q result.

i forgot about that high tech paper bob uses ! my bad ..
you are right he IS a wizard ..

[interneg]

So I'll prepare a side by side, including Velvia with multiexposure...

Interneg, if you want I'll send you the test sheets, give me an address by PM.

I think a more revealing test will come from negative film - it's not a DMax question, but rather how the optics handle resolution across a wide range of contrasts - TMX or Delta 100 might actually be more effective & will also remove colour management distractions from the test. It might be next month before I have time to do any tests, quite busy right now.

[Pere Casals]

I think a more revealing test will come from negative film - it's not a DMax question, but rather how the optics handle resolution across a wide range of contrasts - TMX or Delta 100 might actually be more effective & will also remove colour management distractions from the test. It might be next month before I have time to do any tests, quite busy right now.

Interneg, one thing to note is that at low contrast film has way lower resolving power, may be 1/4 of the one for high contrast, so in part it is less a challenge to retrieve what's in the shot.

[Joshua Dunn]

RodinalDuchamp,

First off contradulations on finishing your Graduate degree! I finished mine last year and a huge part of my thesis revolved around my digital printing. Digital printing has a lot of pitfalls and you can sink a lot of money into finding the right paper for your application. Since I graduated I have been working with other photographers printing their work. Most digital photographers don’t want to put the the money and/or effort into learning to print.

What I usually do is suggest several different paper choices to a photographer based on their work, print several different samples and then with prints in hand talk about what would be the best option. If you are interested email me and we’ll talk about it. You could email me a couple of photographs that are important to your book. I’ll print them, mail you the prints and then we can talk.

Where are you going to graduate school?

-Joshua
www.joshuadunnphotography.com
Joshua@joshuadunnphotography.com