Beginner's questions about print size

[Derek Flack]

Please forgive the longer post. Being new to large format photography, I have been busy reading many of the threads on this excellent forum in an attempt to learn as much as possible, but one question/issue I have remains unanswered/resolved. In my reading about commercial flatbed scanners (like the Epson V700) most user's claim that print sizes of over 11x14 begin to seriously compromise quality level, and are really just beyond the capabilities of most scanners in such a price range.

For print sizes of 16x20 and up, most recommend getting an imacon or drum scan. This presents something of a problem for someone like me who is on a student budget. A 100mb scan at the pro lab in my city (Toronto Image Works) is about 55$ on the imacon 848 and 65$ using a drum scanner. Considering that the print also costs between 65-80 (for 16x20) depending on the quality level, we are talking about some hefty money being forked out.

The main reason -- though not the only one -- I moved into large format was to be able to start making larger prints than I can with my Nikon D50. I found that with little cropping, I could get pretty good quality out of 11x14's using it, but certainly nothing more. I'm finding it hard to swallow that now, with what feels like a huge negative at 4x5, I will have to double or even triple my costs to get a print that is essentially one size larger than what the D50 can handle.

I know print quality is a difficult term to define and agree upon, and that some are more discerning than others, but I would appreciate it greatly if some of the experts could weigh in on what some of my options are for printing at 16x20 and 20x24. Am I just facing a sad cost-of-materials reality that I had unforeseen, or not up to speed on other options? I suppose I could skip the scan and just enlarge the negative traditionally at another pro lab, but I have become accustomed to (or perhaps even reliant on) using Photoshop to process my images.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

[Ted Harris]

Derek, you have options:

1) Do you really have to print larger than 11x14? Many here seldom print larger than 8x10.

2) Do you have to print digitally? You should easily be able to acquire wet darkroom equipment that allows you, even with limited space to do an occasional 16x20.

BTW, I will be the first to tell you that, at larger sizes you will get the best prints from top quality scans and digital prints but you can do very well going either of the routes I suggest while you are in the leaning stage.

[sanking]

Please forgive the longer post. Being new to large format photography, I have been busy reading many of the threads on this excellent forum in an attempt to learn as much as possible, but one question/issue I have remains unanswered/resolved. In my reading about commercial flatbed scanners (like the Epson V700) most user's claim that print sizes of over 11x14 begin to seriously compromise quality level, and are really just beyond the capabilities of most scanners in such a price range.



Derek,

Why not test this yourself? I know several photographers who are perfectly satisfied with the quality of 4X magnifications (16X20 prints from 4X5 negatives) from scans on Epson V700 and V750.

Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

It partly depends on the photograph I think. Not all photographs need extremely fine detail to serve their purpose. But 4x is a fairly common maximum for many people I think. 16x20 was the largest I could print in my darkroom and that only with some difficulty so I don't find 4x particularly confining.

[Jim Jones]

4x5 negatives scanned on an old Epson Perfection 2450 Photo model and printed up to 16x24 on an Epson 3800 are good enough for buyers in my unsophisticated market and for me. There are several variables to consider: detail on film, scanner capability, printer, subject matter, photographer's standards, buyer's preference, etc. Perfect sharpness isn't always required. Remember, some of Edward Weston's highly regarded contact prints were diffraction limited by small camera apertures. Tonality was more important than detail. If some subjects demand more than one's equipment can provide, there are enough other subjects to keep a photographer busy for a lifetime. Newer, bigger, and better photo gear is only one of several approaches to excellence.

[Nathan Potter]

Consider what Ted says about wet processing. I have always done wet B&W and color processing even in my old bathroom. As I have started doing digital processing I realize that high quality all digital workflow can be vastly more expensive than the older wet techniques (of course you buy some enormous flexibility not available with wet processing). I assume you do color work so I would suggest that you can set up to do Ilfochrome prints like I still do for almost a song compared to all digital. Get a 4X5 enlarger for a couple of hundred bucks, some printing filters and a drum for 16 X 20 and you're practically in business. The print paper is reasonably available by mail and the chemistry is available from some Ciba print labs (see some other threads on this forum).

A caveat with Ilfochrome printing is that it will work best using low contrast chromes unless you do masking - which you want to initially avoid til you get used to the masking process.

Nate Potter

[Derek Flack]

Thanks for the responses. At present it is not possible for me to do my own darkroom work, but that will be something that I very seriously consider moving forward. In the meantime, I will do some testing of my own. There is a lab that does enlargements from 4x5 on my way to school that they call handcrafted prints (I'm assuming this is through traditional wet methods, right?). I will also try to use a commercial scanner to make a larger print so that I can evaluate exactly how these stack up in terms of my own standards.

And if I have something that I want to post-process in Photoshop, I'll spring for a drum scan. I'm assuming for 16x20, I'll need a file that's around 125mb.

[Gary L. Quay]

I'm not trying to be a commedian, here: Have you tried a focusing loupe? My images are much sharper since I started using one.

--Gary

[Adam Kavalunas]

You dont need to spend that kind of money for an imacon scan. Currently, my film developer(contact me if you want his contact info) is offering Imacon scans for $20, which is i think a 200mb scan. I personally get drum scans, so I cant speak for quality of imacon scans vs drum scans. I print at photocraft in Boulder CO and a 16x20 Lightjet is only 31.00.

[Ed Richards]

Are you talking about black and white or color, 8bit or 16bit? A 100MP 16bit color file is way too small to show any advantage over a consumer scanner, except for shadows on really dense slides. I think 4x with a consumer scanner, used correctly - which takes some practice - with properly exposed negatives, will give you files that will make as good a print as a good drum scan. Go larger, or have to deal with poorly exposed negatives, or use slides, and the drum scan has real advantages.

More importantly, unless you are rich, you will make better pictures by taking and scanning and printing a lot of pictures, rather than getting an occasional drum scan. Better a cheap scanner and a cheap printer and a lot of prints.

[cotdt]

it depends on your standards. i use a D50 too and can tell you that a 4x5 scanned on a cheap Epson will give you 10x the resolution of the D50. A drum scanner would be much better still.

For 16x20 size print you can probably get away by shooting 35mm Velvia 50 and getting a much cheaper drum scan. There's probably 16-20MP equivalent of resolution in there, and the contrasty edges of Velvia make prints look very sharp.

For B&W prints though, you'll want much higher resolution than for color. In this case the Epson will almost never be good enough. It can't even resolve the grain.