4"x5" black and white negative to 5'x7' print?

Hello follow forum-ers :) This is my first post.

Question: what resolution and size would you recommend scanning a 4 inch by 5 inch black and white negative to be printed as a 5 by 7 foot print? I have made over sized enlargements before, but this is double the size that I have ever done from the negatives in this collection. I am using an offsite printer for this job and they are out of town so I really need to be able to download the scan to them, but the max size they allow is only 16mb jpeg. Is it possible to fit a great HR image within that size file?

BTW I am not a professional at this although I have been printing from our archival collection for many years and am just now getting more and more requests for really really BIG images. I use an Epson Expression 11000XL scanner with the Epson Scan software in the professional mode, if this is helpful to answer my question.

Thank you in advance for any input on the project,
Creekhollowgirl
Smith County Historical Society, archives

Assuming a 5 x 6.25 foot print (that would be the same aspect ratio as 4x5, anything larger would crop the image), you'll need an 18,000 x 22,500 pixel image to print @ 300 DPI. That means for a full 4x5 image scan you need a scan resolution of roughly 4600 PPI - round that up to 4800. I honestly don't have any experience with the 11000XL but if it's like the Epson V*** series, you won't get that kind of actual optical resolution (closer to half) - but unless the film was shot with really excellent technique it probably doesn't have that kind of resolution anyway. Regardless, for best results, send it to be scanned by a pro (drum scan preferably) or scan at at least 4800 DPI and use appropriate image finishing (sharpening, etc.) to print that size, but realize the limitations of that system - both at the film and the scanner.

Thank you so much for your response. The image was taken by a fabulous local photographer that just did excellent work it is very crisp. I can scan at that resolution, but then it is a matter of how large the image is...will go to find a pro with a drum scanner, now. Much appreciation for the input!

Given a 16 MB JPG, what's the point of shooting 4x5 film in the first place ?

This all sounds, as the English say, a bit dodgy.

Ah yes, I forgot about that part. Surely the printer you use would allow you to send them a larger file for such a big print. If not...well I'd suggest a different printer. I opened one of my scans, resized it to the size needed and added a bit of sharpening, and the resultant file was 60mb.

I was thinking this was some type of historical image. If the photo was taken by a local photographer, perhaps you should talk to him/her about this.

I don't think this is an unreasonable problem. First, I'd scan at 3000dpi. This would give a file that would render at 200dpi at 5x6.2. feet and for such a size, this should be completely fine. How many of you can tell 200dpi from 300dpi at an appropriate viewing distance of seven feet or so? Don't BS me: not one of you. At a Photoshop jpg scaling of 62 this would give a file well under the limit, I think, though I haven't run something that big through PS. 62 is pretty good, though--it's what I use for casual archiving, after careful testing, and the loss is really minimal. It will turn 7400x10,500 into a really decent 4.9Mb, for instance.

The dodgy parts of this are first, the scanner. Normal flatbeds seem to top out at around 2200 in real life, so there's a shortage there, and that's real. Getting a drum scan would be an answer for that part

Next, some of you are going to say "Yes but *I* (can I make that "I" more important, somehow?) am going to look at that print from six inches away because I'm a pixel peeping jerk who's going to ruin everyone's day by commenting on how bad the printing job is. Yes, maybe you are, but what is the intended use for this photo? Is it going to be hung in an inaccessible place? Is it going to be a passing thing in an exhibition? I'm betting it's not going to be sold in an art gallery for $20,000, so the pixel peeping thing is perhaps irrelevant. What's relevant is how will it fit the intended use, and we really don't know what that is. We have some gigantic blow ups in our shop, over nine feet, I think. They were made from 35mm and they're not that good, by my standards, but they were made for temporary exhibition in a large hall. You really can see from ten feet away that they're crap, but everyone who sees them is massively impressed, because all they're seeing is the subject, and the subject was very important..

The fact is that most exhibition photos are not made for LF photographers' pleasure. So, Creekhollowgirl, what's the audience? Is this for a museum show, or is it to be hung on some rich donor's wall, or what? We kind of really need to know that.

Anyway, I think the point here is possibly (we don't know yet) to make something useful and appropriate, not to try to make the highest quality thing possible, pulling out all the possible stops.

Reading the original post, we find "the max size they allow is only 16mb jpeg. Is it possible to fit a great HR image within that size file?"

Perhaps this thread should be closed.

The answer is "yes". But there's still the question of what's appropriate for the intended use, which it OP may not have considered.

However,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfec..._enemy_of_good

I really appreciate all your input--although a few comments are a bit obnoxious, but understandable since I really know nothing and am just trying to the best with what I have.

I am mailing the printer the high res scan today. They accept other sizes and formats; they just have to be mailed in (which I was trying to avoid). Ended up scanning at 300 to 60"x84" and the jpeg is 46.9mb.

This is for a print on a large wall in a local business' waiting room. So, it will not be scrutinized like in a gallery setting--but I do hope that it will gather interest for more orders at our organization. We do not get any money from the state and only 3000 a year from our county, so any income and donations we get are precious as we run a very large archives (500,000+ just in our historical negative collection) and museum that are open to the public. Also, to address the comment about going back to the photographer--he has been dead for about 20 years :( As, all but one of the photographers in our collection.

I have only been a member of this forum for a couple of days and hope to learn more as everything I know is pretty much self taught. Started out here (in the archives) as a volunteer and I did have a local photographer that is a life member and would give me free advice when needed, but she is retired now and traveling extensively--so out of pocket at the moment. So, I was thrilled to find this forum!

Thank you for all your patience and input on my inquiry,
Creekhollowgirl
Smith County Historical Society

Quote:

---

I really appreciate all your input--although a few comments are a bit obnoxious, but understandable since I really know nothing and am just trying to the best with what I have.

---

To rip an American movie classic.........Forget it Jake. It's the web.............

Yep you are right--no decorum on the internet ;)

So, when you get that big print and mount it on the wall, please take a photo of the installation and post it here to satisfy our curiosity.

Thanks!

Hi There

I would start off with a very good scanner, and make the file big in 16bit.
We print large scale from various size all the time and for the size of print you are asking for I would make an RGB file in the neighbourhood of 3-7hundred mb.
You mentioned scrutiny and here we would use an Eversmart Supreme Scanner or Imocan, depending on art work supplied.

16mb is unfortunately not going to cut the mustard, and a Epson Flatbed would not be the scanner of choice for this project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creekhollowgirl

Yep you are right--no decorum on the internet ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creekhollowgirl

I really appreciate all your input--although a few comments are a bit obnoxious, but understandable since I really know nothing and am just trying to the best with what I have.

---

My posts were probably among the obnoxious ones: please forgive my rudeness.

I don't think that it's a good idea to output JPG and throw away information so early in the process. I'd scan at the maximum optical resolution of your scanner and keep it in TIFF until it goes to the printer and let them start with a non-compressed (well, non-lossily compressed if there's such a word!) file. Drum scans would be nice but probably too expensive/time consuming.

Heck - if you walk up and put your nose to one of Saint Ansel's large prints they really aren't so amazingly sharp - and it didn't seem to diminish his artistic/economic stature all that much!

Attachment 149706

I didn't take this photo and have not seen the installation myself. Little disappointed, because it appears to have been skewed when they did the canvas wrap.

Thank you all so much for all the input!

It's a historic photograph and probably wasn't level to begin with. When reproducing a historic photograph there is always a question about whether to "fix" an original problem or not and there is no correct answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

It's a historic photograph and probably wasn't level to begin with. When reproducing a historic photograph there is always a question about whether to "fix" an original problem or not and there is no correct answer.

---

Hi Kirk thank you for the response :), I did "fix" it prior to printing and checked the canvas when it arrived prior to sending it to be mounted....:( I still haven't seen it in person though it could be the angle of the snapshot.

Ahh - the magic words -"Canvas Wrap".

I bet it looks really good where it is. Canvas isn't an ultra-high resolution medium, so I would have worried a lot less about the resolution. I have a couple of 44 x 66 canvas wraps that I did for a gallery show and even though I started with 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 originals I wouldn't hesitate to work from something a lot smaller if it was going to be printed on canvas. They can look quite nice even if they aren't knife sharp. Nowhere near the tonal range of a good paper print, but for what they are and where they are they can be very effective - size matters!

Congratulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creekhollowgirl

Attachment 149706

I didn't take this photo and have not seen the installation myself. Little disappointed, because it appears to have been skewed when they did the canvas wrap.

Thank you all so much for all the input!

---

I like how those black and red things are stacked up the wall. BTW, someone must have messed up your installation, the picture is turned 90*.

I think they used a 90 degree rotational filter. Otherwise known as a cylindrical lens at 45 degrees. Fun experiment - try it sometime - fill a glass tube with water and rotate it and watch the environment spin at twice the rotation rate of the tube. In the days before digital I think this is how they used to do "the world is spinning" effects for TV/movies.