Largest print size from medium format ?

<p>Does anyone know what are the largest print sizes from medium format, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 etc...., I was wondering what size you can print up to and keep optimum quality. Thanks for any help as usual.<br>

John.</p>

<p>Thats a bit like asking how long is a piece of string, but suffice to say MF can outstrip Digital and if you want to get a Drum scan done then you are miles in front. After that get yourself a workstation with megga memory and Prefect Resize 7 and take the whole lot even further. One essential point in all of this is that your original image be as sharp and well defined as possible, I am putting 15mp files through PR7 and achieving some outstanding results with a print resolution of 300dpi, please don't confuse resizing in Photoshop with PR7> Photoshop is a total mess, sorry to say that but the output is dreadful.<br>

Optimum quality in the finished product is totally dependent of the initial image and nothing else.<br>

But just how far do you want to take you images.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Adrian.</p>

<p>It depends. On the film used and the tools used for capture. I have a 30x40 print on a wall in my office that was made with the large print in mind. I used a tripod, remote camera release and put the mirror up before final capture.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that the larger the print the farther back the viewer usually stands to look at it.</p>

<p>I usually shoot 6 X 6, but crop, so it's effectively 6 X 4.5. I can't physically print larger than 11" X 14" in my darkroom, but have printed 20" X 24" in a friend's darkroom and could have gone much larger, given bigger trays, paper, and enlarger.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photoshop is a total mess, sorry to say that but the output is dreadful</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is that saying about a workman who blames his tools? It's so strange that no one else seems to have noticed this 'fact'.</p>

<p>Like that piece of string, the size you can print to depends on many variables, particularly including how close the viewer is to the print.</p>

<p>Even 35mm film was on some occasions enlarged to <strong>billboard</strong> size (18x60 feet, http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/inspirationalStories/kodakColorama_index.jhtml?pq-path=38/492/11517 ) and displayed by Kodak in Grand Central Station in NYC.</p>

<p>A lot of factors go into how big a print can be made optimally. I have printed 645 negs shot from a Helicopter chasing a train at 40x60 with iso 400 color neg film and they were incredible--but the grain was obvious up close. At a reasonable viewing distance, they were flawless (scanned on an Imacon and printed through a RIP). I never saw it, but one was printed for display at 8x10 feet and I heard it was incredible as well (I don't think I would have thought so as the photographer, but non-photographers have very different perspectives on these things.)</p>

<p>Everyone has their own "Optimal" definition as I suggested above, so one can only experiment and see where your tolerance is. Not all lenses and cameras are created equal either. I have some images shot with a different 645 camera that I wouldn't probably want to print much larger than 24x30 or so--if that. So it is a matter of taste as well as what you worked with through the process.</p>

 

<p>I apply a rule of thumb of 10x linear enlargement for absolute maximum print size, so a 6x6 neg would give a maximum print size of 24 x24 inches. That said, it all depends on what film you use and how good your technique is. Personally, I would not enlarge a 6x6 neg above 16 x16 inches. Generally, a larger print will be viewed from a greater distance so faults would be less apparent. </p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Back in the studio days, I made many prints up to 40x60 from 6x6 Hasselblad negatives. These would all have been done on Kodak's old Vericolor negative stock. 16x20's and 20x24's are a piece of cake and if you shoot from a tripod with a cable release (and consider mirror up exposures), you will have no trouble going as large as you wish. By the way, I've seen similar size images from a colleague who used an early model RB67 with the early lenses. Shooting and lighting technique can contribute or detract from the image quality, so be careful with how you handle the camera.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I've seen 6 foot high prints from 6x6cm that were as sharp as you could ever wish for a print that size to be. OTOH I've seen murals from 5"x4" that were horribly soft.</p>

<p>One thing to bear in mind is that depth-of-field is geared to the final print size, and if you stick your nose right up to a giant print, then hardly anything will appear to be in focus - so f/22 becomes like f/2.8 on a smaller print at normal viewing distance. Step back to where you can view the whole print and everything snaps back into focus.</p>

<p>If the viewing angle (not distance) is kept the same, then the apparent image quality will be almost identical whether the print is 4 inches or 4 metres across. Then there's the pictorial or interest factor of the image itself to take into account. If we find a picture aesthetically pleasing we tend to step back to admire it, but if we're interested purely in the subject matter or technical quality then we tend to lean in to examine it more closely. For example; would anyone criticise Edouard Manet's paintings for their lack of detail?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I too use to go as large as 40X60 from my Hasselblads with the 150MM CT* and VPS film. </p><p>A good tripod is a must, no photoshop, no tricks, just a straight print from the negative. </p><p>And I could have probably gone larger!</p><p>But I found I could go no larger than a 16X20 from my Mamyia 645 with the same focal length and tripod. </p><p>The optics do make a difference when you are going large.......not trying to start a war. Just my experience with my equipment, same film size involved.(you mileage may vary) <br></p><p>That's why I changed to all Hasselblad back in 1980, to be able to sell larger prints........started out with the 645 in 1974, switching from 35mm.</p><p>In smaller print sizes I saw no difference between the two cameras. <br></p>

<p>It depends. It depends on so many things , some of them qualitative, that the real answer is almost certainly as big as you want or need or can cope with. </p>

<p>These factors are important</p>

<ul>

<li>Is the photograph as sharp as it can reasonably be, which probably means made on a good tripod and head?</li>

<li>Is the exposure spot on?</li>

<li>How are you going to make the prints? If analogue then one set of numbers will apply. If scanned and printed digitally then another. </li>

<li>What are you going to use to scan the original? The print size potential will be very different if you answer "flatbed" than if you say "drum scanner".</li>

<li>Who is scanning? Is it you with a scanner that you've just bought, or a lab fully conversant with how to get the best from their scanner? Or is it you with a film scanner with which you are fully skilled at producing big scans and have all the accessories necessary to keep the film flat whilst scanning. </li>

<li>Who is going to make the print file and how experienced and skilful are they at optimising the scan for printing, including the various methods and points to apply sharpening?</li>

<li>If analogue, what constraints does the enlarger place on the size of print practically available?</li>

<li>How close will the finished print be viewed ?</li>

<li>What are your atandards and expectations? </li>

</ul>

<p>There will be other factors that I've forgotten. For me, the answer has generally been that I haven't been comfortable beyond say 20" sq from a 6x6 original using analogue processes, in my case prints from slides. Using scan and print digitally I have little difficulty in getting prints 36" sq from the same originals, and I could probably go larger - these prints do not depend on viewing from far away for their apparent sharpness. Sp long as you can flex viewing distance with quality, you can have as big prints as you can get someone to make. </p>

<p>It all depends on the end resolution you are prepared to accept, and which back. If you have an 80 megapixel back, and want to print at 300dpi, you can print at 34.4" x 25.8" / 874mm x 656mm<br>

If you're happy to print at 200dpi (which should be fine for a large print) then you can print at 51.6" x 38.7" / 1311mm x 984mm<br>

etc</p>

I think everyone has touched on the type of film and the technique used so I'll just talk about an average shot. First I have to say I shoot

with a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro and some Fujifilm Acros iso 100 black and white film. I have the film processed online and then when I get

them back simply scan on a not so expensive canon 9800?? I usually print on an Epson R1400 that prints up to 13x19 just fine. I

have had some scans drum scanned and then printed online as large as 24x36 without any problems. I also had some 24x36 prints

done from a digital file that came out of a Kodak DCS 14n and I have to tell you the prints look just as amazing as the medium format

scans. I didn't want to believe it but I looked very closely to both prints and they are almost identical. I wish I could show everyone

both prints side by side.

 

I do have to say that the film looks very different than the digital but equally as good. The Kodak has this artistic almost acrylic paint look to it. When you look at 100% crop you can see what appears to be brush strokes. Weird huh?

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you take great care in the capture process you can achieve anything.

 

Ed

<p>No offense Eddy, but if you scan it with a Coke bottle, a web cam will be as good as the RZ.</p>

<p>“…I was wondering what size you can print up to and keep optimum quality.”</p>

<p>I could print up to 16x20 inches because that was the largest size paper and easel I had for my enlarger.</p>

Dave I am shocked that you would say that about my dear beloved RZ! The canon scanner I use is not great but far from being a

coke bottle. I can also attest to drum scans because I have done lots of them in my time and I can say that some are not as great as

the price being asked. I still say that the RZ is one of the best cameras ever made and still produces great images. That's my story

and I'm sticking to it!

 

Cheers

<p>I have made excellent prints up to 32x24 inches from Velvia with a 645 camera and a quality scanner. My printer is 24 inches wide, thus that is the largest I have tried.</p>

He was not talking about your rz but about your scanner, i scan with a similar scanner to look at my negs (from rz too)

and when i scan for printing on an imacon i can see a huge difference, even more difference when printing analogue

(which I love).

Thanks for clarifying Sander. I agree but sometimes I get some real crapy scans from a drum scan even though it's not

the norm. Can't help what others do. I wish I had enough money to spend on a drum scanner so I could do my own

stuff but man those things are expensive!

 

Ed

<p>Well, you can print very large. Read more details <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/fuji-gw-690-iii-fuji-gsw-690-iii/">here</a></strong> - it's about Fuji rangefinders 6x9 format and image quality</p>

Good drumscans will always be better than the best flatbed, if you want to get all yhe benefits of using a good medium

format camera you need good scans, if you say you are happy with flatbed scans, I think you've not made a good

large print.

 

To stay on the subject, I make analogue 90x90cm prints on a regular basis which I find very pleasing.

Thank you all for your responses, Jens, the Fuji GW690III images on your website are superb, many thanks.

<p>JDM has a long way to go before he reaches to pinnacle of perfection, he sadly has problems reading QUOTE ><br>

<strong>What is that saying about a workman who blames his tools? It's so strange that no one else seems to have noticed this 'fact'.</strong><br>

<strong>Like that piece of string, the size you can print to depends on many variables, particularly including how close the viewer is to the print.</strong><br>

Yes the output in Photoshop is a real mess, but I don't use Photoshop it's not one of my tools I choose to use for resizing, but JDM elects to criticise me for mentioning that fact I use PR7 and I am far from being a poor workman JDM, his ideation regarding prints is somewhat adrift of reality, I always ask people to step back and view the canvass in all it's totality and then step forward and look at all the fine detail that you could not see from afar.<br>

Well PR7 has done some magnificent work for me, and will continue to be my No1 tool in the future, Cheers OnOne.</p>

 

<p>Adrian, you and no software can render more details into an image after it has been captured.</p>

<p>This translates into the simple fact that a scanned image with a size of 12.900 x 8.600 **native** pixels definitely features more details than any currently available digital system - at a color depth of 48 bit or 16 bit per channel of course.</p>

<p>As good as Perfect Resize might be, if the detail is not in the original you need a magician to squeeze them into your file in the post process.</p>

<p>As I've written in my <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/fuji-gw-690-iii-fuji-gsw-690-iii/">article</a></strong> about the resolution of a 6x9 camera loaded with ASA 100 slide film, a perfect prints size from a standard scan @ 4.000 ppi gives you a print size of 3,4 meters x 2,27 meters or 11,16 feet x 7,45 feet <strong>without</strong> any resizing.</p>

<p>Read this <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/resolution-resolving-power-of-film/">article</a></strong> to understand the resolution topic.</p>

<p>After that, you might read the rest about <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/resolution-of-film/">resolution and resolving power</a></strong></p>

<p>I don't think we are on the same wavelength, problem is I have never claimed that PR7 will put detail into an image, it will however preserve detail to an outstanding degree, where you will find other methods of enlargement <strong>will loose detail</strong>.<br>

Sorry you are entertaining ideas that are too far off the beaten track for me, please don't make the stupid mistake of thinking I'm just a Digi Pixie merchant, I have a couple of Fuji GX680's and all the bells and whistles that go with them.</p>