Lambda printing/ What magnification possible?

[Martin Patek-Strutsky]

Using a drum scanner and a lambda printer can I expect the same maximal magnification as in analog printing? Or can I go for even larger prints?

In analog printing I feel to get excellent results with a magnification of up to about 9.

My lab tells me with a drum scan and a lambda printer I can go up to a factor of 12 and get the same results.

Do you agree?

[Ellis Vener]

the last set of Lambda prints I had made were approximately 48" x 72" in size and were made from 96Mb files files from 4x5 Provia 100F transparencies. The scans were made with an Imacon. These were slightly bigger than lifesize full length portraits of an actor in make up and costume. How good was the resolution? from about three feet away you could clearly make out the texture of makeup powder on the actor's face. Does that answer your question? I suspect much depends onthe quality of the scans the print is being made from. The Lamba has a built-in interpoltion program which is why the file didn't need to be as big as I expected it to be.

[David A. Goldfarb]

At www.westcoastimaging.com you can find a table with recommendations for maximum enlargement from various format sizes, based on a drum scan of up to 5000 ppi. The drum scanner can go beyond 5000 ppi, but they suggest that resolution does not really improve beyond this point.

[Todd West]

Based on my experience with optical type R and a Tango/Lambda print process, I'd agree with your lab's numbers. Wether or not your particular lab has the know how to pull it off is a question I can't answer. Personally, I've found I prefer to leave the enlargement ratio alone and have the higher print quality.

[Bruce Watson]

Why no. I don't agree.

I have my own drum scanner, and run my own drum scans. I really like drum scans. But they aren't magic. They won't create information where none existed before.

Your negative defines all the information that is available. You use all of it when you print traditionally. When you drum scan, you decide how much of the information to pick up. When you increase scanning resolution beyond the point where the scanner is imaging the grain in the film, you've got all the information available. Increasing beyond that makes a bigger file, but it doesn't create more information.

Basically, if you are happy with a 9x enlargement when you print traditionally, that's all you'll be happy with when you print digitally. It's easy enough to find out for yourself - try it and see. Print your negative traditionally at 9x, then have it scanned and printed at 9x and 12x. Lay them all on the table and pick your favorite.

Just because I can take a 35mm negative and scan it and print it the size of the Jumbotron at the local football stadium, doesn't mean it's going to be anything other than an enlargement of a 35mm negative. All the information you have, is all the information you have.

[QT Luong]

If you print straight from the scan, there is no reason why you should expect to gain anything over optical enlargement. On the other hand, it is possible to somewhat attenuate the effects of grain and to increase accutance on the digital file, both of which would result in better results than what would be obtained with a optical enlargement.

[Martin Patek-Strutsky]

Thx for your comments. Hoped for some kind of generally accepted basic rule.

As 50% of you agree with my labs opinion and 50% don't, it is obviously one of these "it depends" issues.

Will go for some testing, hopefully without breaking the bank...

[Ellis Vener]

If the lab makes a claim, have them make a test print at their expense to back up that claim.