Best possible 24x36 poster print?

[Jay_6595]

I'm currently using a Canon Rebel XT 8 megapixel and am completely unsatisfied with my 24x36 poster prints. I'm going large format!, and would like to know exactly what I need to do to make a stunning color poster of this size. Go large format 4x5? Then print optically? Or drum scan it at what resolution?, and print on what printer? I've read through the FAQ and can't find what I'm looking for. Just a short reply would be very helpful to me! Thanks in advance. Jay

[Donald Qualls]

I'll second the recommendation for 4x5 -- even a pretty modest 4x5 with a 70+ year old lens will easily beat any digital you can buy short of a NASA budget. I have an 8 year old flatbed scanner with glassless film adapters, and I get about 93 megapixels from 4x5 film at 2400 ppi; a drum scanner can get about twice that pixel count at 4000 ppi and the pixels are worth more because of better optics and mechanics.

And from 4000 ppi, you can enlarge about 13x and still keep an original pixel density of 300 ppi -- that'd be 52x65 from a 4x5, or perhaps an inch or two less to account for cropping off the film holder masking if you don't want to keep that.

Though I'll admit to a preference for optical prints, I'll also admit that my preference is partly because I work almost exclusively in black and white (I've never shot color in large format, only 120 and smaller), and the very best black and white digital prints are still no match for a well made optical print (at least to my eye), even though current pigment inks are likely to be as permanent as an archival silver print. I also prefer prints somewhat smaller than 24x36 inches, however; I think little is gained by printing beyond 11x14 or, at most, 16x20, simply because I have to stand back further and further, so I see no more than I would in an 8x10 at arm's length.

[Steven Barall]

As far as the film choice, scanning and printing goes, what you need is a partnership with a good photo production house. For example, people seem to like a place called West Coast Imaging at westcoastimaging.com. They do scanning and printing and their website has a lot of really useful information on it including really nice articles and advice. Another advantage of a place like that is that they do so many different things that just by cruising their website you will probably see processes available to you that you weren't even aware of. A great source for ideas.

I don't have anything to do with them and I have never purchased services from them but I do use their website for information and I'm sure that there are other digital labs out there that offer similar services. Good luck.

[Neal Wydra]

Dear Jay,

There was an article in the May '06 Pop Photo comparing the large online sources for prints/posters. It could be that you simply need a different vendor.

[Frank Petronio]

Apologies if I'm wrong but Jay is probably just a troll yanking your chains on a lame joke. There are no short answers to his questions and if he was legit he'd be the first to realize that.

[Jay_6595]

No Frank. I'm legit. Seriously trying to make the best 24x36 posters I can! I want them to be "stunning." Thanks for all the replies so far. I think I will try 4x5 with Velvia film (I have heard, but don't know what speed), drum scan at 4000 dpi and then print on an Epson printer... unless anyone else has a different idea. Thanks again to everyone helping me get the best results.

Jay

[Ken Lee]

Jay -

It all depends on what you mean by "stunning"... Sharp ? Saturated colors ? Subtle colors ? Black and White ? No grain ?

The answer will depend on the subject, lighting, time of day, etc. A horserace, or a horse barn ? Close or far away ?

If you use 8x10 film, it is a 3x enlargement, which is quite within the range of a good scanner - and the results will be stunning. If you choose 4x5, then you are probably pushing things, since it will require a 6x enlargement, with no cropping of the shorter side.

If you scan a 4x5 at 4000 ppi, you may have a problem manuipulating the file on anything but the most robust computer: the file is 915.5 MB - and that's only 8-bit color. Once you start fiddling with it in Photoshop, it only gets bigger from there on out.

If you know you need a 6x enlargement, and you want to print out at 360 dpi, then scan at 6 * 360, or roughly 2400 ppi. In that case, you get "only" a 329.6 MB file. That's pretty big already. You'll still need a good computer.

[Rory Roopnarine]

I recently scanned a 4X5 Kodak TMX negative on my archaic Epson 2450 scanner, and I subsequently had the file printed by A&I to 16"X20". The photograph was displayed at an exhibition to raise funds for a wildlife rehabilitation centre. Alongside my print were those from twenty other photographers, all of whom used digital capture, ranging from six to sixteen megapixels. If I had not seen it for myself, I would have never believed how a 4X5 negative, scanned on an inferior scanner, could so casually outclass digital, at least at this exhibition. I know people argue all the time that a couple digital cameras can match 4X5 film up to 16X20, however, I have to see it to believe it.

[Donald Qualls]

If you know you need a 6x enlargement, and you want to print out at 360 dpi, then scan at 6 * 360, or roughly 2400 ppi. In that case, you get "only" a 329.6 MB file. That's pretty big already. You'll still need a good computer.



Aside from some wait time for screen updates, I have no trouble manipulating files in this size range in PS5LE or GIMP 2.2, under Windows 98 (though with this software, the manipulations I can perform on the largest files I've handled are limited -- 16 bits per channel, 2400 ppi on a 6x9 cm negative gives me about 44 megapixel, or about 284 MB in color, but I can only perform levels and crops at this bit depth). I have an AMD Athlon XP 2600+, 1 GB RAM, and feForce FX5200 128DDR video -- a pretty modest system by current standards, most of it four years old (though I upgraded the video and CPU to this spec about a year ago).

[Ken Lee]

Just curious about the GIMP: does it support ICE profiles ?

How can you print to a variety of printers/inksets, each with their own color gamuts ? I found right away that unless I print through a custom profile, I'm wasting my time - and the only thing "stunning" is the exasperation and cost of wasted materials :-)

[Gordon Moat]

Well, poster can mean one, or a run of several hundred. The price differences, and quality, will be in how many are produced of each unique image. That stated, you can get into 4x5 fairly low cost, and have a good professional lab do some Chromira or LightJet prints that would meet your needs. Consider that 4x5 proportions are closer to a 24" by 30" print, though you could go larger and crop or trim to whatever size you wanted. Using 6x9 would be closer to the proportions you originally wanted; there are many film backs for 4x5 cameras, or even dedicated 6x9 view cameras that would meet that requirement.

I think it would be cheaper, and an easier learning path, if you had someone else doing the prints. As well as West Coast Imaging, check out Weldon Color Lab, and Chrome in San Diego www.chromedigital.com (http://www.chromedigital.com). Most of these have either a Chromira or LightJet set-up.

The advantage of Chromira or LightJet over using any inkjet system is that these are continuous tone, while inkjet systems try to simulate continuous tone. Yes, you can get nice outputs from several inkjet printers in the over $2000 range, but compare to a nicely produced Chromira or LightJet, and you will find the tonal values more pleasing. These are chemical prints that use a digital process to get the end results. If you are running off several hundred of each, or many thousands of prints, then your only cost effective choice is commercial printing, which is a completely different discussion realm.

Ciao!

Gordon

[Helen Bach]

I use ezprints.com for my larger prints from scanned 4x5. They print on FCA. It took a few tests to learn how to get exactly what I wanted. An FCA glossy 24x36 is $27, a 30x40 is $45. Don't be misled by the price.

Best, Helen

[Jay_6595]

Thanks Gordon, I only plan to make one print. So do we all agree that for a really great 24x36 inch poster, I should shoot in 4x5 large format? Then have it wet mount drum scanned and edited by West Coast Imaging? Then printed on a chromira with Fuji crystal archive matte paper? Thanks, Jay

[Jay_6595]

Sorry, I meant to say 8x10, not 4x5! Jay

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Jay,

I think either 4x5 or 8x10 would work extremely well to go to a 24" by 36" print. You might want to ask about paper choices, though the Fuji matte paper is nice. Even 5x7 camera would work, though a few less film choices.

Ciao!

[Donald Qualls]

Just curious about the GIMP: does it support ICE profiles ?



I can't say for certain that it doesn't, but I don't know how I'd load one if it did. I do almost no photo printing digitally; I've got a reliable older color printer that's pretty much useless for photos (HP Deskjet 660C), and an even older laser printer, and it'll be a long time before I want or need a photo-capable color printer, so I've tried very few photo prints and never gotten close enough to a "good" print that the difference a profile makes would have saved the thing.



I'd also point out that the version of GIMP I have is not the most current, because the GIMP developers are no longer releasing Win98 executables -- sometime soon, I'm going to have to bite the bullet, wipe this machine clean, and install XP (there goes another $150 I'd rather spend on film). Given that GIMP is free, I'd suggest downloading it, installing it, and seeing if it can do what you want. If not, you've lost nothing but some time.



My point, however, was that my system is far from a supermachine, and it handles 250+ MB files with reasonable aplomb, even in a somewhat antiquated OS that's often accused of not knowing what to do with the second half gig of RAM. RAM is cheap these days; there's almost no reason not to have 1 GB or more in a new machine -- and if you have 1 GB, you should be able to handle files of up to about 400 MB without having to hit disk for the first undo, which keeps things reasonably spry.

[Capocheny]

Jay,

Obviously, the larger the film size... the better the enlargement. For example, if you're looking to produce a 16x20 print then enlarging from 4x5 will be a 4x enlargement. Enlarging from an 8x10 will only be 2x.

So, if it were me... I'd probably go 8x10. However, this isn't to say that you can't get nice results from a 4x5.

Getting a drum scan professionally done will probably result in a much nicer outcome than scanning on a home version flatbed scanner. Again, it's not that you can't get acceptable results from a flatbed.

In essence, it boils down to what you're looking for (viz-a-viz grain, sharpness, color etc) and what you deem to be "stunning!"

Try the 4x5 route and decide whether it works (according to your criteria) or not.

If it does, terrific!

If it doesn't... move up to the next format and give it a try!

Eventually, you'll come to the realization of what works and what doesn't. Simple! :)

Gordon,

There's plenty of film available for 5x7 ranging from Provia to FP4 to TMax to Portra 160NC. At least 20 or more. :)

Take a peek at the following link:

http://www.viewcamera.com/archives.html

[There's a pdf file listing all the available 5x7 films here.]

Cheers

[Nanba sempai]

You can enlarge any image and print it multipage with this poster maker software (http://www.ronyasoft.com/products/proposter/). I used it few times and really liked.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Look out everyone! A 5+ years dead zombie thread has been awakened from its slumber!

[jayabbas]

What have you done ?!?! End of days swiftly approaching...

[gevalia]

[QUOTE=Donald Qualls;157510... I have no trouble manipulating files in this size range in PS5LE or GIMP 2.2, under Windows 98 ...[/QUOTE]

Holy crap! Win98! They don't even make viruses for that OS anymore.