I want to make a 60"x48" print from a 4x5 transparency. Since I want maximum quality a drum scan would be necessary. Drum scans range from 25 mb, 100 mb and 200 mb. I thought I would need at least the 200 mb size and wondered if even that was insufficient. The person at the photolab, whom I respect, said 200 mb is overkill, far more than I need. I hesitated to go down to 100 mb because I want sharpness and detail to prevail in the final print. I also did not want to experiment with the 100 mb since someone has already agreed to buy.
What do you think? Is 200 mb overkill for a 4'x5' print?
Will, it really depends on a couple of factors - the printing technology and the viewing distance. On continuous-tone printers (e.g. Lightjet, Chromira, Lambda) you can get away with a lower resolution than inkjet. Also, viewing distance will determine how much detail you really need (where past a certain point viewers won't be able to tell the difference).
That said, I subscribe to the philosophy of scanning to the largest file you can for the most flexibility in how you want to use the scan in the future. West Coast Imaging recommends 300mb for 4x5 scans.
In my personal opinion a 100mb 8-bit file is a compromise for this size print and a 200-300mb will yield a visibly better result. If you're scanning to 16-bit, double all sizes.
I do not know what printing technology the lab is using. And I think there is added quality to an image of that size when it can be viewed up close as well as from a distance. People naturally tend to approach something that caught their eye. (Something non-threatening ) I am not sure they offer 300mb scans. But I am glad I asked for the 200mb.
Will, you may want to check with Danny Burk for the scan rather than having your lab do it. He's done several drum scans for me and they were all superb.
Will, feel free to ask me any questions that you may have. For a 4' x 5' print, I'd definitely go with higher res than 2000 dpi. The latter, coming from 4x5 at 8 bits, will create a file size just a hair over 200 MB. As point of reference, I would consider the latter excellent for prints up to 22x28 (with a small amount of added interpolation), but for a larger print, I recommend a higher resolution scan. If your lab contact is telling you that 200 MB is far more than you need, I'd be looking for another lab.
You can check out my website's drum scanning info at http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm
I'd second Danny Burk's drum scanning. He'll provide you with what you need, whatever that might be, I've also seen a lot of his prints and they are absolutely first class. You don't get results like I saw starting with a bad scan.
Danny, I am gonna email you about an order. I am in need of getting some of 35mm slides scanned, and was wanting to get them for 20 x 30 prints. Well that would be max size. If Guy recommends you, then I will ship some work out your way.
Will - at the print size you're considering, you really want to pull out all possible detail for the best results. While you can certainly interpolate to a greater degree, there is a definite difference at close inspection when you're coming from a larger original file. For argument's sake, let's say that printing res that you need is 360 dpi (= Epson printers), although you may actually need a different amount depending on printing method. For example, Lightjet printing requires 304.8 dpi, letting you use a lower res scan for the same size print.
From a 2400 dpi scan, a 4x5 will give roughly 12000 pixels on the long side. (The actual figure will be slightly less due to film borders.) At 360 dpi printing res (without upward interpolation), this would allow printing at about 33" on the long side. A print of 60" is nearly double this length; that's a lot of interpolation. On the other hand, a 4000 dpi scan will give roughly 20000 pixels; at 360 dpi, that's about 55" on the long side. That will give the highest quality results, since it only requires a slight upward interpolation. As I'm sure you know, it will also create a very large file that may cause difficulting in working it up, depending on capabilities of your computer setup. You can compromise with a 3200 dpi scan; this will give about 16000 pixels (long side), or roughly 44" print size prior to upward interpolation.
The difference in actual detail extracted between 3200 dpi vs 4000 dpi is debatable; you may see very little. My tests do show, however, that the cleanest end results are obtained from scans requiring the least amount of upward interpolation. There is no improvement in going beyond 4000 dpi, as you are at grain level, so I don't offer higher res scans. They simply require more file space and more memory; some service bureaux do offer them, but I don't agree that there is any benefit in doing so. For film smaller than 4x5, I run all scans at 4000 dpi to extract the maximum possible detail, and consequently allowing the best possible prints to be made at larger sizes.
Mike, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to help.
Absolutely give Danny a call. He drum scanned a couple of 645's for me, one of which was quite a challenge. I am very pleased, to say the least!
A 300 MB 8-bit scan from a 4x5 will knock your sox off! The resulting large print from such a scan will realize the huge potential of the 4x5 transparency.
I estimate a 200 MB drum scan will yield 10000 pixels on the longest side. At 60" that is a 166 dpi scan. Half of what you recommend, Danny. I have already committed myself with the 200 MB drum scan. I am not sure if I should go further and see what kind of print they come up with. That is a rather expensive experiment. I would rather be more sure of the results. I will get in touch with you for future drum scans, Danny.
Vern Clevenger's gallery person in Bishop told me he only does 200mb Tango scans to do Lightjet prints up to 40x50. His website says 300mb but apparently it is only hype for the most part. His large prints are awesome to view.
For a 60"x48" print I'd definitly scan at 3200 or 4000 dpi in 16 bit. Less than that and you will lose details during upresing. These are the resolutions I use for my 4x5 scans.
Alain, I would greatly love to see one of your master prints. I will keep your advice in mind.
As a side note, I recently went to our museum to view the Galen Rowel Gallery. There is a large print of a flower filled meadow backed by towering peaks. I estimate it is close to 60"x48". From a distance it is beautiful, as is all his work, but viewed close it looses its impact somewhat, as it is not as sharp as from afar. Obviously it is how the print is viewed from a normal distance that is most important and I may have to settle for that. At least this time. Next one...watch out
Will, a 200mb scan from 4x5 will have a lot more in terms of detail than the Galen Rowell scans from 35mm film.
Guy
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 9, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Will, a 48"x60" from 35mm would be something like a 192"x240" in 4x5 - yes, that is nearly 17x20 FEET. Conversely, a 48"x60" in 4x5 would be like a 12"x18" in 35 mm, which is well within 35 mm's capacity to be printed at.
Everything I have heard about the prints in Galen's gallery is that the are stunning when viewed from a distance, but in many cases, printed just too big for the medium captured on.
The discussion of how large one ought to print has been a raging subject that never ends. Technology regularly changes the game providing fresh fodder to fuel the discussion. Generally smaller format photographers tend to view larger prints from their media more positively than larger format users that print at the same size. Especially if they haven't been exposed much to viewing large prints of the latter. Thus a usual discussion will have someone with smaller formats proclaiming how they printed such and such a small format image up to some huge size and it looks great (to them). One can just walk along the tents in any art fair and see how much apparent variation there is in what different photographers think is acceptable. Of course what the less informed public accepts is even less consistent. Heck even last year I saw a bunch of way blurry 6x7 prints at a Carmel gallery printed to typical LF size that the gallery person, that should have known better considering their high class arena, apparently thought were fine. Actually there isn't anything wrong with printing as large as one wants given unusual purpose or presentation. Works with billboards of course. So do a number of huge 35mm murals on Gatorboard, Frans Lanting has made. Great looking art with sharpness and detail not that important. So I think when the wise person discusses how large they can print, they ought to provide some parameters of use.
One might just state detailed enough that one can view the print at arms length. That will satisfy just about everyone regardless, and especially in the large format community that ought to be the defacto standard for ususal high end prints unless someone redefines their situation. Danny's statement reflects where many larger format pros have found a balance. One can do the simple math of course by considering that highest end digital printers today are in the 300 to 400 pixel per inch range range that is about at the limit of human visual acuity at close range. Thus William, 60*300*48*300*3 equals about a 750 megabyte file. Also 60*300 equals 18000. Divided by 5 inches equals 3600, that is the required scan resolution.
All this requires the media having the detail to make that worthwhile. Just because one shot in large format does not in itself guarantee anything will end up sharp. Ideally one shot a static subject that has good detail on a level plane that with movements was brought into crisp edge to edge sharpness with a sharp lens, accurately exposing one of the high end fine grain low ASA films. However lots of subjects and situations are less than ideal requiring compromises. It is difficult to get much more than about 2400 to 3000 ppi resolution out of the finest grain color films because beyond that one is magnifying grain. Personally I prefer to see high detail close up on prints so conservatively size my own large format prints so they all show impressive detail up close. ...David
Guy writes, Will, a 200mb scan from a 4x5 will have a lot more in terms of detail than the Galen Rowell scans from 35mm film
That was exactly what I was thinking and it set my mind at ease. The large print is especially designed to be seen from further back but it will also invite closer scrutiny.
Dan, from your words I can conclude everything will be alright. I hope the Galen gallery will be seen in your area. Along with the viewing enjoyment you can listen on a phone receiver Galen commenting on his work. It was very moving to hear his voice alongside his images.
David writes So I think when the wise person discusses how large they can print, they ought to provide some parameters of use.
David, there is a good reason for the large size as the print will have a specific purpose.
Thanks again all for the response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 10, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Will, that is what I was trying to say. Your proposed print size is well within the size range a 4x5 will look good at.
Good luck with the printing project.
Posted by Alain Briot on April 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Galen Rowell worked with 35mm film, and over the course of his career films improved drastically in resolution and therefore enlargement capabilities. When you look at enlargements, in his gallery, made from photographs taken towards the end of his career, they exhibit a much higher level of detail than images taken at the beginning of his career.
This being said, today high end 35mm digital sensors exceed the resolution of 35mm film, regardless of the film type used.
Finally, as many have pointed out in this thread, 4x5 can withstand a 50x60 enlargement with virtually no resolution loss.
Discussion
22 repliesWhat do you think? Is 200 mb overkill for a 4'x5' print?
Thank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I get 300 MB scans done for my 6x7 MF slides. This amounts to a resolution of ~4000 dpi. I use these scans to make prints up to 22"x28".
For a 60"x48" I'd ask for more than 200 MB.
That said, I subscribe to the philosophy of scanning to the largest file you can for the most flexibility in how you want to use the scan in the future. West Coast Imaging recommends 300mb for 4x5 scans.
In my personal opinion a 100mb 8-bit file is a compromise for this size print and a 200-300mb will yield a visibly better result. If you're scanning to 16-bit, double all sizes.
Guy
I do not know what printing technology the lab is using. And I think there is added quality to an image of that size when it can be viewed up close as well as from a distance. People naturally tend to approach something that caught their eye. (Something non-threatening
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Guy
Will, feel free to ask me any questions that you may have. For a 4' x 5' print, I'd definitely go with higher res than 2000 dpi. The latter, coming from 4x5 at 8 bits, will create a file size just a hair over 200 MB. As point of reference, I would consider the latter excellent for prints up to 22x28 (with a small amount of added interpolation), but for a larger print, I recommend a higher resolution scan. If your lab contact is telling you that 200 MB is far more than you need, I'd be looking for another lab.
You can check out my website's drum scanning info at http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm
Regards,
Danny
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
mike
From a 2400 dpi scan, a 4x5 will give roughly 12000 pixels on the long side. (The actual figure will be slightly less due to film borders.) At 360 dpi printing res (without upward interpolation), this would allow printing at about 33" on the long side. A print of 60" is nearly double this length; that's a lot of interpolation. On the other hand, a 4000 dpi scan will give roughly 20000 pixels; at 360 dpi, that's about 55" on the long side. That will give the highest quality results, since it only requires a slight upward interpolation. As I'm sure you know, it will also create a very large file that may cause difficulting in working it up, depending on capabilities of your computer setup. You can compromise with a 3200 dpi scan; this will give about 16000 pixels (long side), or roughly 44" print size prior to upward interpolation.
The difference in actual detail extracted between 3200 dpi vs 4000 dpi is debatable; you may see very little. My tests do show, however, that the cleanest end results are obtained from scans requiring the least amount of upward interpolation. There is no improvement in going beyond 4000 dpi, as you are at grain level, so I don't offer higher res scans. They simply require more file space and more memory; some service bureaux do offer them, but I don't agree that there is any benefit in doing so. For film smaller than 4x5, I run all scans at 4000 dpi to extract the maximum possible detail, and consequently allowing the best possible prints to be made at larger sizes.
Mike, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to help.
Dan, thanks to you too for the good words!
Absolutely give Danny a call. He drum scanned a couple of 645's for me, one of which was quite a challenge. I am very pleased, to say the least!
A 300 MB 8-bit scan from a 4x5 will knock your sox off! The resulting large print from such a scan will realize the huge potential of the 4x5 transparency.
-PB
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Alain
Alain, I would greatly love to see one of your master prints. I will keep your advice in mind.
As a side note, I recently went to our museum to view the Galen Rowel Gallery. There is a large print of a flower filled meadow backed by towering peaks. I estimate it is close to 60"x48". From a distance it is beautiful, as is all his work, but viewed close it looses its impact somewhat, as it is not as sharp as from afar. Obviously it is how the print is viewed from a normal distance that is most important and I may have to settle for that. At least this time. Next one...watch out
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Guy
Everything I have heard about the prints in Galen's gallery is that the are stunning when viewed from a distance, but in many cases, printed just too big for the medium captured on.
One might just state detailed enough that one can view the print at arms length. That will satisfy just about everyone regardless, and especially in the large format community that ought to be the defacto standard for ususal high end prints unless someone redefines their situation. Danny's statement reflects where many larger format pros have found a balance. One can do the simple math of course by considering that highest end digital printers today are in the 300 to 400 pixel per inch range range that is about at the limit of human visual acuity at close range. Thus William, 60*300*48*300*3 equals about a 750 megabyte file. Also 60*300 equals 18000. Divided by 5 inches equals 3600, that is the required scan resolution.
All this requires the media having the detail to make that worthwhile. Just because one shot in large format does not in itself guarantee anything will end up sharp. Ideally one shot a static subject that has good detail on a level plane that with movements was brought into crisp edge to edge sharpness with a sharp lens, accurately exposing one of the high end fine grain low ASA films. However lots of subjects and situations are less than ideal requiring compromises. It is difficult to get much more than about 2400 to 3000 ppi resolution out of the finest grain color films because beyond that one is magnifying grain. Personally I prefer to see high detail close up on prints so conservatively size my own large format prints so they all show impressive detail up close. ...David
That was exactly what I was thinking and it set my mind at ease. The large print is especially designed to be seen from further back but it will also invite closer scrutiny.
Dan, from your words I can conclude everything will be alright. I hope the Galen gallery will be seen in your area. Along with the viewing enjoyment you can listen on a phone receiver Galen commenting on his work. It was very moving to hear his voice alongside his images.
David writes So I think when the wise person discusses how large they can print, they ought to provide some parameters of use.
David, there is a good reason for the large size as the print will have a specific purpose.
Thanks again all for the response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Good luck with the printing project.
This being said, today high end 35mm digital sensors exceed the resolution of 35mm film, regardless of the film type used.
Finally, as many have pointed out in this thread, 4x5 can withstand a 50x60 enlargement with virtually no resolution loss.