8x10 color workflow

[Frank Petronio]

Curious as to what people are doing for 8x10 color, from film to scanning to printing and mounting? What's your typical workflow, choice of materials and techniques, and subject matter? I'm mostly interested in fine art portraits and the usual New Topographics stuff.

[Marco Frigerio]

We (we're an husband and wife team) shoot with 8x10" slides, Velvia 100F or Astia 100F.

We scan the images with an Epson 4990 and never enlarge more than 4x.
If we have the intention of enlarging more than 4x we go to the lab and have a drum scan or an high end flatbed scan (btw, I'm in the process of purchasing the drum scanner of my lab, an Howtek 4000D).

We make basic, or more sophisticated corrections, in PS CS and than we print on an Epson 9600.
Our paper of choice is the Epson Premium Semimatte (250), we print using the free Bill Atkinsons's profiles.
We usually print at 1440dpi, only seldom at 2880dpi.

We usually mount the print on a Dibond panel.
Dibond is a sandwich material based on a polyethylene core, with a layer of aluminum on both sides.
Dibond has a limited expansion coefficient and gives the artwork a great strength.
Then we coat the prints with a clear matte-finish laminate wich contains an UV filter.

For what concern the "artistic" side of the process things are much more complex ;))))...since we decided to introduce ourselves in our images and begin experimenting with the multiple exposures (at a certain point we feel the need to take the "distance" from the so called "Dusseldorf school" which inspired us so much, and try to be less "descriptive" and "objective"), every images is conceived and planned in our home, we begin putting random ideas out and then we decide which one to follow or combine different ideas...this process is very "liberating" (is it right? ;)))) ) from a creative point of view because in this way we are not "limited" by the place in which will take the photograph, i.e. the image doesn't come out wandering around and trying to find something that grab our attention or a particular kind of light...then, when we're on location ready to shoot, even if a lot of things are planned before (like the way I have to pose or the "stage" elements), there is always a component of improvisation, for example I'm very inspired by the performances and the body art, or the paintings of Bacon, so if I it happens that while we're shooting, in that particular moment I "feel" something or I have new ideas or thoughts, I begin improvising and Cristina just follow me and try to be a kind of emotional or conceptual guide...

Frank knows our work, if someone else is interested you can have a look at:

www.cristinamian.com (http://www.cristinamian.com)

Ciao

Marco

[Roger Richards]

Hi Marco, how is the Epson 4990 working out for you scanning 8x10? When you say that you do not enlarge more than 4x, does that mean a maximum sixe of 32x40 inches?
Thanks.

[Marco Frigerio]

Roger, yes, a 4x enlargement is a 32x40" prints.

At this enlargement ratio I'm very happy with the 4990, I find the prints excellent: nose sharp, no visible digital artifacts or colour/tonal issues.
With some images (i.e. when the original slide is perfect), I can even enlarge 5x obtaining a 40x50" print that looks excellent to my eyes.
I begin to notice a quality degradation in the prints whith a 6x enlargement or more: prints are less sharp, there are some visible digital artifacts and there are some colour/tonal issues.
The fact is the the 4990 scans are much softer compared to a drum scan, and to restore sharpness you have to use massive quantity of unsharp mask in PS, but you have to work in a very complex and sophisticated way, using noise reduction software because digital noise is a big issues after all that sharpening, that's basically the main reason why you can't enlarge more than 4x or 5x.

But ìf you limit your "enlarging" power you'll be very happy with the 4990, as I said before I'm very very happy with my 32x40" or 40x50" prints.

Another issue with the 4990 which I didn't find the solution for is Newton Ring, with some films (like Velvia 100F) they are always present, with other films, like Velvia 50, I never had Newton Rings...

Ciao

Marco

[Roger Richards]

Thanks fro your response, Marco, I was wondering about Newton Rings also. I read somewhere that if you used a hair dryer on your negative/slide for a few seconds before scanning on a flatbed that it helped eliminate Newton Rings. I have no idea if this is true, not having ever tried it.

[Frank Petronio]

My limited experience seems to be that the environment - probably the humidity - plays a large role. Some days I can't shake them, other days I never see them.

[Roger Richards]

Frank, if I remember correctly you have a 4990, right? I was considering a Microtek 1800f, then a 4990, and I can't make up my mind. I already have an Epson 4870, which is really good up to 11x14 with 4x5. My feeling is to scan 8x10 contacts on the 4870 for the Web and small prints and then go for a drum scan for larger prints.

[Henry Ambrose]

Roger,

I found the 4990 to be a definite step up from the 4870. I could immediately see the difference - for whatever thats worth. I just printed on my 7600 Epson a 6x7 color neg. at 16x20 scanned on the 4990 that looks pretty nice. Not "superbly-wonderful-amazing-exquisite" but very nice. That piece of film is being drum scanned on a big Howtek at 300 MB. I'll get it back on Monday and can offer some real world comparisons soon.

[Roger Richards]

Thanks very much, Henry. I also shoot 6x7/6x8 as companion to LF, and found the 6x7 scanned on the 4870 fine up until 8x10, but then after that the resolution fall off could be clearly seen. I was dithering about the Microtek 1800f for 8x10 negs because of cost, as any larger prints above 11x14 would be headed for drum scanning. Then the 4990, more reasonably priced, has been also mentioned again as a good contender for the print range I am looking for. I am shooting 8x10 color negative for a project right now. I look forward to your comparison.

By the way, I solved my 360mm lens dilemma, I have a 360mm/f6.3 Fujinon-W on the way that a fellow LF forum member had available.

[Frank Petronio]

I tried to get a working Microtek 1800f but after two defectives I gave up and bought the Epson 4990 for half the price. I rationalize that a working Microtek is only somewhat better than an Epson. And when I have something wonderful, I'll spring for a high end scan. Let's see, I should be able to get a dozen Nancy Scans for the price difference between a $1000 non-working Microtek and a $450 Epson...

[Roger Richards]

I'm hearing you, Frank. Perhaps you can answer one question for me. I have a Fujinon CMW-210mm/f5.6 that I used for 4x5. The coverage is 308mm, just 4 short of what it takes to cover 8x10 at infinity. Would it be usable for 8x10 at close range without movements, as a lens a bit wider than my 240 for tight spaces? I was thinking of trying it but wanted to ask someone first.

[Oren Grad]

The coverage is 308mm, just 4 short of what it takes to cover 8x10 at infinity. Would it be usable for 8x10 at close range without movements, as a lens a bit wider than my 240 for tight spaces?

Yes. The image circle grows larger in proportion to the amount of focus extension, so you can actually have quite a bit of movement if you're working really close. I've taken 8x10 snaps at close range with my 180 Apo-Sironar-S, and even on one occasion at macro range with my 135 Apo-Symmar.

Have fun!

[Roger Richards]

I'm happy to hear that, Oren :-) That means the lenses I was using for 4x5 such as my 150 APO Sironar-S will be usable for extreme close-ups. Thanks for your help.