max print size from 6x6

Having lots fun with the new(!) Yashica D. Thinking of getting a good

transparency drum scanned and printed at some absurd size as an experiment. What

sort of size is reasonable?

 

I gather drum scanners can do 5000 dpi. Does this mean I can get a scan at

approx 10000 x 10000?

 

thanks

A really good 6x6 shot (scanned or enlarged) should be capable of enlargment to about 20" x 20". Once you get to these or larger dimensions it's not that the 6x6 shot suddenly becomes unnaceptable, but the advantages of a larger format like 4x5 will become increasingly apparent.

 

If you subscribe to the theory that the viewer steps back to view the print from a distance equal or greater to the diagonal of the print then there's less difference between the formats and you can enlarge virtually indefinitely. However, it's been my experience that sharp prints tend to encourage the viewer to inspect them more closely.

Depends on the subject matter; the film; whether the camera was on a tripod; the aperture--well, you know, the same as if you were printing in a darkroom. Also depends on the viewing distance.

 

How big do you want it? If not over 12" x 12" or so, you may not need it drum scanned. An Epson flatbed is pretty good. I like around 16" x 16" for Hasselblad negatives printed conventionally. But it could be blown up to 16 x 16 feet, if meant for viewing at 50 feet!

I agree with Gary. I do not subscribe to the the print size/viewing distance theory.

 

My general rule is 7x enlagement. The subject matter, how solid your tripod is, film etc. all come into play though. The acceptable print size is very subjective.

Tony, I shoot Astia or Kodak GX with Rollei kit, scan with Nikon 9000 (4000dpi)and print on Epson 7800. With most images, 24" square is no problem at all. I have some images that could easily be pushed to 36-48" square if my printer let me. Naturally, the bigger the image, the more apparent are the flaws. How big you can go differs from how far you should go. It starts with a well-done image. A 5000dpi drum scan will just faithfully capture whatever is good and bad in an image. Prepare to be mezmorized or disappointed.

I have a picture of clouds taken over the sea that I had drum scanned and blown up to

37.5 inches square and it looks incredible. I am aware that the nature of clouds means

that dead sharp edges kind of don't matter and am not sure if my other pictures would

stand such enlargement, but as you say you want to experiment. If you can afford a really

good drum scan then get one done and play with it on a computer. [they had problems

doing my scan so upped the res on the scanner and I ended up with a 600+MB file from a

6x6 !!]

 

My normal scans are dome on an Imacon 949 which gives me a file that is about 20 inches

square at 360ppi. Now if printing on a lightjet that comes down to 300ppi which gives me

an extra 4 inches or so...... And that will stand up to viewing at a couple of inches or so.

 

Thing is, if you have a picture that is 40" square then you don't look at it from two inches

- if you get close to a billboard those great pictures are just great big dots.

 

It's nice to be able to, but as mentioned above, unless you start going 5x4 or above then

you can't really get away with such close inspection.

 

Still - GO LARGE. Do it - get a massive drum scan made and see how big you can print the

thing......depending on how close you want to inspect it, the sky is pretty much the limit.

 

RX

Thanks to all. Another question which follows on - Is it possible to tell with a loupe how sharp a 6x6 transparency is or does one really need to print a decent proof. I ask because I bought a loupe today and some of the images do look good. Could I still be disappointed?

 

Tony

 

medium format novice....

Depends on the loupe, I use x4 and x10 loupes on a lightbox, but to be honest I'll still see more at 100% inspection on screen with a good scan.

A very good scan at 4000 dpi(drum or glass carrier on dedicated film scanner) I find the best

way to evaluate lens sharpness when shooting a very high resolution film like Velvia. Thats

how I test a lens once for peice of mind...and then forget about it. On your other question, I

agree that with a very good lens on 6x6(and I"m not sure if your Yashica falls into this

category) with a slow hi res film and at the optimum F stop(usually F8 or F11), 36"+ is easily

doable with critical sharpness up close, nose in the print.

A good loupe (Schneider for instance) should tell you all you need to know about sharpness, as long as you got a good loupe. A cheap loupe is worthless, as it will hide the sharpness from you due to its inferior optics.

 

Size of enlargement is relative to you, of course, or other viewers, and your equipment and film. But if you have a good lens, and sharp fine grained film, 40x40 or larger can be easily achieved. I have a Velvia shot of a life sized T-Rex outside a MacDonald's restaurant in Tucson, made with an old T* 50mm Hasselblad Distagon on a tripod, probably at about f/8, and it is completely tack sharp thoughout the entire frame, and even up close it looks wonderful in a 40" print.

 

Good luck, and get a good loupe!

I use a Nikon LS-8000 to scan 6x6, which results in an 8500x8500 pixel image (with minimal cropping). This is sufficient for a good 24x24 inch print with fine-grained film. Scanning at higher resolution would make the grain sharper, but without adding significant detail.

 

I have attached an example using an Hasselblad with a CF80 lens and Fuji Reala. The right panel is a 100% crop (pixel for pixel), and is equivalent to looking at a 24x24 inch print with a 4x loupe (just like the large format boys).<div></div>

My experience is that with a good drum scan and a sharp, well-exposed transparency then 36" sq is entirely possible without relying on viewing from a long distance. Bigger may be possible- I just have no experience above this level. This contrasts with traditional enlargement where frankly I found 18"sq not perfectly reliable- and in general terms I've found that a well made LightJet or Chromira from a drum scan is better than an optical print two sizes smaller.

 

Can you tell from a loupe? Well I think so because I've never had a print back from my labs where a lack of sharpness became apparent at print stage.

Billboards that are 12x48 feet are made from MF images and 35mm images too. Unless you have a specific application in mind;t here is no answer to this question. In precision detailed map making with our process camera usually we would never enlarge more than 4x to 5x, in this case you could make an 8x10" print!.<BR><BR>In actual commerical non amateur jobs there are specific goals, print sizes, viewing distances, non wishy washy opinions. This steers the enlargeability and choice of format. <BR><BR>Questions about "max print size" from XXX format seem to pop up every day on Photo.net , with no mention of what a chaps goals are , what the purpose is. <BR><BR>Actual samples made at different enlargements are good tools to learn "max print size". You and your client then can display them at your viewing distances, and see what works, for your applications. <BR><BR>

From film I have enlarged and sold as big as 60X60 portraits from (old kodak vps shot on hassey with 150 lens).Print looked fine I have seen much larger.But people can get anial over any thing.If the customer is happy the print is fine!

<br>

I typically shoot 6x7, but I have printed in the 20" x 30" range and been extremely happy with the results.

<br>

Every picture is subjective - sometimes you can get 7x enlargement, on some occasions you can get 10x....It all depends on the subject matter, how many visible edges there are in the frame, etc.

<br>

One thing I would suggest is that you always print at 300dpi or as close as possible if you are printing on the Chromira or Lightjet.

<br>

For B/W, 360 dpi on a Piezography inkjet printer is the way to go in my opinion.

<br>

<a href ="http://www.benchasephoto.com">Chase Photography</a>

You can see from my example that you could get a 60x60 inch print or larger from a 6x6 cm image, if you cross all the t's and dot the i's. IMO, any print that hangs on a wall will get close scrutiny, so grain and sharpness are important at that scale. You can't get close to a billboard (without trespassing), so that's a different scenario

maybe tony could put his picture up and fence off the area in front of it with a "no

trespassing" sign ? that might even be classified as an installation.

excellent idea

I scanned <a href="http://www.smlg.ca/Portfolio/index.php?gallery=Going%20Places%20You%27re%20Not%20Supposed%20to%20Go/Don%20Valley%20Brickworks&image=Don%20Valley%20Brickworks%20%2812%29.jpg">this image</A> on my Epson 4490 and printed it 32"x32" for a client. Looked amazing.