Scanner for very big 4x5" enlargements

[Kneke]

Hi, I have some questions about making really large black and white prints (about 51x64") from scanned 4x5" negatives.

I have made prints this large myself in the darkroom, with nice results. But, I don't have a darkroom anymore (and it was very time consuming at those sizes). From now on I'd like to be able to scan 4x5" negatives, edit them in photoshop, and have them printed that large in a lab. Is it possible to get images good/large enough for these black and white enlargements from a consumer/prosumer scanner? I'm not seeking exactly the same quality as the darkroom prints, just something that comes close to decent.

The thing is that I'm on a very tight budget, and don't have the money to have a lab make me drum scans all the time. Also, with these photo's the size is really important, so if I must I'd rather lose some quality of the print then size. So, I am seeking a reasonable alternative.

Any suggestions or thoughts are appreciated!

[George Stewart]

Probably the cheapest way to go, and still make the print size you want, would be to use a DSLR. If you have a light table and a copy stand, you could take twelve or more overlaping shots and assemble them in Photoshop. With sufficient patience, one could digitize any size film.

I'm surprised, with the cost of highend scanners, that no one has come up with a sliding film holder thingy for just such an endevor.

[Bruce Watson]

Hi, I have some questions about making really large black and white prints (about 51x64") from scanned 4x5" negatives.

I have made prints this large myself in the darkroom, with nice results. But, I don't have a darkroom anymore (and it was very time consuming at those sizes). From now on I'd like to be able to scan 4x5" negatives, edit them in photoshop, and have them printed that large in a lab. Is it possible to get images good/large enough for these black and white enlargements from a consumer/prosumer scanner?

IMHO, no. You are talking about nearly 13x enlargement. CCDs start to loose out to PMTs around 8x.


I'm not seeking exactly the same quality as the darkroom prints, just something that comes close to decent.

The thing is that I'm on a very tight budget, and don't have the money to have a lab make me drum scans all the time. Also, with these photo's the size is really important, so if I must I'd rather lose some quality of the print then size. So, I am seeking a reasonable alternative.

Sadly, there aren't any reasonable alternatives. For high quality and big enlargements, drum scans are the answer.

If you are doing enough scans you can always buy a drum scanner on the used market. They aren't hard to find, nor are they all that hard to run (about as difficult as learning to use a view camera). Do the math and see if it makes sense for you.

The only "reasonable alternative" I can think of is for you to move to 10x8. From there you could get scans done on a professional flat bed like a Kodak/Creo Eversmart Supreme II or so. I don't know that this would actually be cheaper than drum scanning 5x4 however.

[Kirk Gittings]

You are talking about nearly 13x enlargement. CCDs start to loose out to PMTs around 8x.


This is really true, especially if you want the print to hold up to close inspection, which is one of the reasons we shoot LF.

[Walter Calahan]

Tight budget.

Befriend someone with a good flat bed scanner, like, but not exclusively, Epson 4990 or V750 M or Imacon (not a flat bed). Drop off a case of beer or good wine for the use of the scanner.

Then with Photoshop CS2, use "bicubic smoother" to interpolate the file to your large size. Once all image manipulation is done, convert to LAB color and sharpen only the L channel, then convert back to RGB.

It's not the most ideal solution, but it is "a" solution for people on a budget.

[Kneke]

Thanks for sharing all this great information!

Walter Calahan, I've never used the technique you describe before. I have Photoshop CS2, but have only little experience with it because I did everything in the darkroom before. Would this technique allow me to print at these sizes using self scanned negatives? What exactly would it do for the quality of the prints? A scanner like the Epson 4990 would be in my price range, it costs less then 2 drum scans (I live in Holland, and places like Beeldgebouw charge over 200 euro for 1 scan).

Again, thanks for all the answers.

[Ed Richards]

I think you will do fine with a consumer flatbed like a 4990 or 700 or a canon 9550, if you standard is to do about as well or a little worse than you could in the darkroom. A drum scanned and properly handled digital print will be sharper, in big prints, than what you can do in the darkroom, and certainly sharpter than a consumer scanner. I bet the consumer scanner, however, will be as sharp as your darkroom prints in large sizes.

[Kneke]

That would be great. Then I could now work with an consumer scanner, and in the future have them scanned in better quality if needed. If others have other thoughts on this, I'd still like to hear them. Thanks!

[Ken Lee]

You have not mentioned the distance from which you expect the images to be viewed. If you expect people to walk right up and look at the prints, then a 13x enlargement may not give dazzling results, no matter how good your scanner is. Grain will be apparent, depth of field issues will be present, and the limited resolution of large format lenses will make itself evident.

On the other hand, if people are going to see these images from across a room, then even a consumer scanner may suffice.

[Kneke]

The final prints will be viewed in galleries/museums, and should be seen as a whole, or even in series. So, I guess most people won't get very close for inspection. However, you never know how people will look at it, some may get close, but at the moment I would not mind if those people would find a bit of grain.

[Bruce Watson]

That would be great. Then I could now work with an consumer scanner, and in the future have them scanned in better quality if needed. If others have other thoughts on this, I'd still like to hear them. Thanks!

Of course, you are the only one who can decide how much quality you need and are willing to pay for. And the only way for you to tell is to do some tests.

I've done a fair amount of work now making really large prints from 5x4 film (my largest print is 150 cm, which is about a 12x enlargement). I've worked with consumer flat beds and found that I couldn't go much above about 4x with them. It's not just the sharpness issues. It's also the tonality of the image - it's almost like looking at the print through a veil. The more you enlarge it, the more you see the veil.

Then again, what Ken says is certainly true. If you are going to display these prints so that people can not walk up and view them from close up, they'll look better. Increasing viewing distance certainly masks sharpness and DOF issues. Tonality issues I'm not so sure about.

So how to proceed? I would take a favorite negative into the darkroom and make a section of a full sized print - say an 11x14 inch or 16x20 inch print from an enlargement that would give you a 51x64 inch print. Then scan the negative with a consumer flat bed to that same 51x64 output size and take the same section out of it and print it at the same size as your darkroom print. Now you can compare apples-to-apples, at least as far as degree of enlargement goes. If the resulting digital print compares favorably to your darkroom print, stop there. If not, send that negative out and have it scanned on a professional flatbed. If the resulting print isn't good enough, send the negative out for a drum scan.

Somewhere along the way you'll probably find a scan technology that gives you a balance of quality and price that you can live with. Or you may end up back in the darkroom. Only you can make that decision.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

You want to make HUGE prints to display in galleries and museums, yet you are on a budget! This, even without the possibility of selling the prints, is enough reason to get them drum scanned. Besides what are you paying for those prints? Probably a ton 'o dough. Just do it right and you'll be much happier, instead of fighting with the cheapskate scans all day in PS trying to get them the way you want.

[Kneke]

Bruce Watson, you are right, I have to make some tests now. Thanks for the advice.

Jeffrey Sipress, I know it is a strange situation. There is absolutely enough reason to get everything drum scanned, however as long as people only look at these prints without buying them, I simply don't have enough money.

Thanks for all the replies.

[Ted Harris]

Your last post implies that, at some time in the future, you hope to be selling some of these large prints. If this is your goal then you owe it to yourself to get at lesat one of your negs/trannies scanned professionally and print from it for display.

Prints you make at the sizes you are describing will not attract any future customers. You have no hope pf exp[laining to a buyer how much better the print can look if .......

[Ed Richards]

I am with Ted on getting a reference. Get your best negative drum scanned at, say, 3000 DPI, from Danny Burk. This gives you a reference. Then do the best you can with a consumer scanner and note the difference, and, critically at what size print the difference is not important. That gives you a reference print size that you can make with a consumer scanner to evaluate your negatives. Then scan, photoshop, and print every negative you think is good enough to use and make a cut of as many as you can afford to drum scan and print an mount. It might only be one or two, but that is your starting point. You might also decide that the size where the drum scan does not matter is big enough.

I am sure others will weigh in here, but my prejudice is that it is better to have a decent portfolio of excellent 16 x 20 prints, than a not so good portfolio of huge prints. OTOH, I have certainly seen some very fashionable LF "art" that seemed to have nothing going for it than that it was huge prints.:-)

One other thing to think about - while it is heresy on this list, there is more to a great photograph than sharpness and exquisite tonality. Look at Helmut Newton, who worked with 2 1/4 mostly, and Cartier Bresson, and many, many others. I found that drum scanning did not make that much difference from the best I can do on a canon 9950 for my best negatives. I am sure it would have made a big difference from my problem negatives, but I found a cheaper solution - do not print the problem negatives, and work harder to make good negatives.

[Ken Lee]

You can print them smaller, with a more affordable workflow - and show more of them. Or, you can choose your very best, pay the money for a good scan, and only hang a few.

Personally, I'd rather show one really great image than N mediocre images.

What makes you think that big size is compelling ?

[Kneke]

I agree with all of you that it's better to show only a few quality prints then to go for quantity. However, I can't show the same 5 prints over and over again for years. I have spoken to other artists en critics, and they all agree that the size is an integral part of the experience of these particular works. Although I try to get the best print possible, sharpness isn't the single most important feature of these works.

Just to put things into perspective, photography is only one of the media I use, besides video and installations. Maybe that contributes to having partly different priorities then a full time photographer.

Anyway, thanks for all the thoughts!

[Ted Harris]

Be interesting to see one of your images here ... might make our comments more worthwhile

[Kneke]

I'm sorry, I don't have anything scanned in at the moment, I still have to buy a scanner. But, maybe in the future.

[vinny]

My imacon handles 4x5 originals if your interest in doing a test.

vinny

[Kneke]

Thanks Vinny. I have to buy a scanner myself to preview 4x5's anyway, so I'll just do the tests myself. If I want to do more test, I'll PM you (you are also living in Holland I guess?).