Choice of film for scanning for very large prints

[redrockcoulee]

Reading your post, gives me a feel for what you're looking for. It's not sharp edges and micro detail, but smoothness, lack of grain and good dynamic range that appears to be what's desired.

If your going to use film, then not only fine grain is warranted, but as low a enlargement ratio as possible makes sense.

Why, for maximum "smoothness" you don't want to see the grain. Ultimate sharpness is not required. I would suggest using the 4x5 with the Epson 750 would be adequate along with the finest grain film you have available.

I hate to bring this up on a film centric site, but this is a perfect subject for a digital camera and suggest you try that first to see if you can get an acceptable image. A digital camera does not even come close on micro detail as our sheet film cameras, but the lack of grain maked for smooth images.

A D200 has a 10 megapixel sensor, not much in this day and age. You can do much better. With a good scaling program, you can make some really big prints.

Anyway, the 4x5 with the Epson 750, I believe, will get the job done.

bob

Thanks. If we were to go digital we do have access to a friend's D3 which although only 2 Megapixels larger is of course full frame with the larger pixels. My wife does plan on shooting the installation with the D3 or D200/K10D we have access to and select the best angles or views for the film shots. I have even considered renting a back for the Hasselblad but that is as expensive as drum scans due to the days travel from a rental place. In addition if she goes to the workshop they have Genuine Fractuals to assist but does not that work as well for scanned images? Never used the program so do not know.

[sanking]

Thanks. If we were to go digital we do have access to a friend's D3 which although only 2 Megapixels larger is of course full frame with the larger pixels. My wife does plan on shooting the installation with the D3 or D200/K10D we have access to and select the best angles or views for the film shots. I have even considered renting a back for the Hasselblad but that is as expensive as drum scans due to the days travel from a rental place. In addition if she goes to the workshop they have Genuine Fractuals to assist but does not that work as well for scanned images? Never used the program so do not know.

In your first messae you wrote that your wife planned on "using a 69 back on the 4X5 She Hao view camera and a 90 Caltar lens to shot the images and scan them with Nikon CS 8000 using Scanscience fluid scan."

I think that work flow should give better results than shooting 4X5 and scanning with an Epson V750. And if you use color negative film I believe the Nikon CS 8000 should give you results very comparable to a drum scan. The CS 8000 should give you about 4000 ppi, with effective resolution of about 70 lp/mm, which is probably more than you can capture with the 6X9 back on the Shen Hao. A 6X9 cm negative scanned at 4000 spi will give you a file of more than 100 mp, which should give better results in a large print than a P45 or P60 Phase Back on the Hasselblad.

However, what I would suggest is that you expose and develop a test image, scan it on the CS 8000, then send it to a couple of places for a drum scan. Have someone make really large prints from the three scans, and evaluate the results.

And if you plan to have the prints made by Elevator Digital you may want to have them make one of your scans. I understand they have, or will have soon, an ICG drum scanner at the site.

My personal opinion is that if you shoot color negative film you will do just about as well with the CS 8000 as with the drum scans, but I could be wrong. And as you have seen, these scanner questions become very contentious. It seems that "scanner opinions" have replaced the "pyro" wars as the number one spark that may start a flame war on the LF forum.


Sandy

[venchka]

Not to start anything contentious.......

I would suggest Kodak Ektar 100 as one color negative film to evaluate. The color palette and saturation may or may not be to your liking. The absence of grain, smooth tonality, dynamic range and scanned appearance is quite nice. The film was made for scanning. In 120 format and a Hasselblad 501/80mm Planar combination it is stunning. Even with my ancient $150 Epson 1680 scanner. A good scanner would only make it better.

[bagdad child]

Not to start anything contentious.......

I would suggest Kodak Ektar 100 as one color negative film to evaluate. The color palette and saturation may or may not be to your liking. The absence of grain, smooth tonality, dynamic range and scanned appearance is quite nice.

I agree, Ektar is a nice film thats easy to scan. It does easily block up the shadows though if it's not exposed enough. Another film I can recommend is Fuji Pro160S which has incredible dynamic range. The color palette isn't really important if you scan unless you want to keep the images as "true" as possible with regard to the film characteristics.

Another good slide film to consider is Kodak 100GX. I have found it to have surpisingly much exposure latitude for a slide film.

Chris

[Gordon Moat]

I have a similar camera set-up with Linhof 56x72 back and a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8, so I am guessing your Caltar is very similar. You will gain a little bit by going with f11 over f16, which will help out your shots. You did not mention lighting conditions, though that is something to consider when correcting your work later in post processing, or if doing corrections while scanning. However, it helps to be as close as possible when you do the shots, which might mean some filter usage, like an 82A or 82B.

You may consider using a Kodak, Gretag, or similar colour chart in some of your images. That could be useful for doing corrections in post. It would help with the consistency between shots, especially if changing daylight conditions might influence interior illumination during the time needed to capture the images.

I would also recommend Fuji Astia 100F or Kodak E100G, since they are very neutral in colour rendering. Kodak Ektar, while quite a nice film, tends to boost saturation a little, so I would not recommend using that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[redrockcoulee]

A mid report update:

According to an email from my wife the images she has had printed up look great except a little softer on the edges but that it enhances the feeling of movement in the images. She ended up shooting 5 or 6 rolls of Portra 130 NC on a FujuGX680 original model. She also shot about 200 images with a D2X and 500 or so on a D3. She does not understand why we all tell her that digital was designed especially for her Dana used to take a camera with a brand new roll of 36 exposures to photograph a rock or a tree and come back telling me the camera stopped working after a couple of shoots and I would point out no it stopped working after 36 shots when the roll was finished.

The film apparently worked out the best for enlarging. She told me that the blacks are rich blacks with detail in them and she is pleased with the results. And that she learnt lots in her two week residency spent mostly scanning and some printing. Thanks to everyone here who gave their valuable suggestions.

Her show is in February here in Medicine Hat which is a winter vacation spot for those living in places like Regina or Winnipeg. I will post images of the installation in the announcement section when it is hung.

The Fuji GX680 is a wonderful studio camera with all kinds of movement possible. It can be handheld in much the same way as a 27 inch TV can be. The battery packs are impossible to obtain and there are expensive alternatives but we sent the pack in at the local Battery Direct and they had it rebuilt as apparently there are only AA batteries in there anyways at a cost of $40. Not that the camera will be used until the next time we borrow it but it is nice to know that it is there to use.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm glad it's working out.