Printing large from 6x7 negative

Hello!

 

I have a 6x7 negative (Kodak Portra 160nc) that I have scanned with my Nikon

Coolscan 8000 @ 4000 dpi which gives 10897x8742 pixles.

 

Im planning to make a big print from this negative, 150x120cm (approx 60x47

inches) on a lightjet.

 

The picture has some details, so the question will be if the print will be good

enough ? I know this depends quite a lot on the picture itself and the viewing

distance to the picture, but want to know if someone has done similar sized

prints from scanned 6x7s.

 

Will it make a big difference for the print if I get the negative scanned with a

Imacon 949 or a drum scanner instead ?

 

Is there a difference if I interpolate the picture to 200 or 300 DPI ?

 

Thanks!

i have made amazing print from 6x7 at a size of 40x60 many times and they where perfect. Of course they where also well expose, well scan, well work and well print...so yes you should be able to get nice print from a nice original.

the print resolution on the Durst Epsilon lightjet is 254dpi, if that helps any. apart from that,

it oddly seems to have something to do with the actual neg. i have had some that have not

scanned well on the imacon, and have had to opt for other methods. but i think your eye is

the best judge. you could always scale a 6x4" sample at the enlargement you plan to print,

and try it on an inkjet or a minilab, to see what you think.

 

t

An effective way to preview a large (and expensive) print is to make a print file with the dimension and resolution of your target (60x47 inches at 200 and 300 ppi), then print a portion of that file at a size you can manage at home. You can make this selection using the marquis tool set to a specific size, then copy and paste into a new file.

 

The Nikon is grain-sharp. A better scanner, such as a drum scanner or an Imacon, may provide better shadow detail, but higher resolution will mostly give sharper grain.

Going to a drum scanner will give you the benefits of a higher resolution, but most importantly, it will yield all the benefits of a fluid scan, which are greater brilliance, color saturation and smoother gradation among others. However you can also get the same benefits on your Nikon if used as a fluid scanner. Dry scanned images can never quite attain the same looks as drum scanned images because of light scattering. You'd be amazed at how good your Nikon is if used as a fluid scanner. See www.fluidmounting.com

Julio

www.scanscience.com

<i>The picture has some details, so the question will be if the print will be good enough?</i>

<p>

Maybe. You are talking about a enlargement of at least 21x. The print will not be "nose sharp" at this enlargement level. It will be a little soft and you will see grain from up close. As you move back of course it will look better.

<p>

<i>Will it make a big difference for the print if I get the negative scanned with a Imacon 949 or a drum scanner instead ? </i>

<p>

The Imacons and Nikons are both highend CCD scanners. I doubt you'll see much improvement going to an Imacon. If you use a fluid mounting kit on the Nikon, it will very probably give you a better scan than an Imacon.

<p>

A drum scan on the other hand will show considerable improvement, especially at this enlargement level. PMTs are seriously sharp, and fluid mounting on a curved drum offers a number of advantages from keeping the entire film in the exact plane of focus to filling in the tiny scratches and imperfectsions of the emulsion and film base. The resulting file will come closest to capturing all the information on the film, resulting in a print that is as sharp as you can get, with good tonality and smoothness of tonal transitions. Depending on the scanner/software/operator, your film, the image, use of tripod, use of mirror lockup, etc., etc., etc.

Thanks for the answers!

 

I will try to print some small samples from the interpolated image to check the sharpness and quality.