Scanning for large print

[john_boyd9]

<p>I'm trying to scan a shot from my medium format film using an epson V500.<br /> From this file I want to make a 40x40 (inches) print. At what DPI should I scan my file?<br /> I checked an online calculator and it tells me in order to make a 40x40 print at 240 dpi, I need to have a file that is 9600x9600 pixels. In order to get such a file I have to input 4800 DPI into epson software for scanning which gives me a file that is 331MB. Am I doing this right? <br /> Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[Colin O]

yep

[mendel_leisk]

<p>And, just run a scan or two, at that resolution and down a it lower, see how it works out. 240 dpi might be a bit high, considering the purpose.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You're doing it right but you will not get a real 4800ppi scan from an Epson. Even the better Epsons don't give much more than a real 2000ppi. Sure you'll get a big file , but it won't have the detail you need to support a big print like that. </p>

<p>To even approach that quality you need to be using a film scanner such as a Nikon Coolscan 9000, or better yet a drum scanner. Plenty of commercial scanning services use these machines. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Agreed with David above.<br>

Putting the needed resolution into scanner software is theory from the drum scanner days. Those machines were really working that way. - CCD line scanners are more like our modern flat screens; i.e. their maximum resolution is given and anything that isn't a fraction of it like half third quarter.. should be rather wild pixel guesswork done by the software. - OK Epson pack lousy optics in front of their high res CCDs, so you have to bin half of the generic pixels anyhow but that way finer steps in scanning for less resolution seem an option.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Agree with David above and then only if you have calibrated the film holders to the scanners focus point. Think about printing at 180dpi or pay for a better scan. Much depends on the projected viewing distance to the print. At a good viewing distance, 180dpi works fine.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>Espson V500 resolves around 1600. I would drum scan for a print this large if you want anyone viewing it at a reasonable viewing distance. The Epsons are great proof scanners and prints up to 8x10 inches with MF film. Otherwise worthless for anything larger. I own an V500 and have been happy with it for proofing but I use a film scanner for blowups.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

For large prints from film Lenny Eiger at http://www.eigerstudios.com does the drum scans for me, up to 8000dpi .

 

He does truly beautiful work, far better than anyone else i have used, and more rwasonably priced as well. You will need

to checkhis current pricing but i believe it is still about $135.00 per scan.

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons:<br>

<br>

Mr. Henderson said “To even approach that quality you need to be using a film scanner such as a Nikon Coolscan 9000….” </p>

<p>He is right. But in addition, your scanned film must have a combination of film quality, lens, exposure and focus that exceeds the almost true 4000PPI ability of the 9000. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>Thanks guy. I recently purchased a Hasselblad 503cw. I wish I had the money to purchase a good scanner to go with it. I can't really afford renting a drum scanner. I'm basically broke after purchasing the 503. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Couple of things. </p>

<p>First you don't need to buy or rent a drum scanner. And with all respect to Ellis, you don't need to spend Lenny Eiger money either. You can get a one off film scan for much less than that. You can get a drum scan for quite a lot less than that, which will still knock the socks off anything an Epson is going to do.</p>

<p>Second , if this is an opportunity, you should be thinking about what you need to do to get it right. For unless you get it right it won't be an opportunity long. It seems to me you're thinking of ways to get it done cheaply, but the sad truth here as so often elsewhere is that just because its affordable or within budget doesn't make it the right answer. The right answer gets you in front of your potential client with a piece of work you can be proud of, where you're not measuring inches of viewing distance to try and calculate whether its going to be sharp enough. <br>

I guess in your shoes I'd be thinking about these.</p>

<ul>

<li>Picking up on Mr Burke's point, for he's right, is the image good enough to support a really large print? If its sharp under a loupe , & well exposed then I can tell you from my experience and with certainty that its possible to make a great 40" sq print from a 6x6 that does not depend on extended viewing distance to seem sharp . Sadly, I can also tell you that if the original is not really good then no amount of work or money is going to make a great print that size.</li>

<li>I'd wonder about whether the opportunity you have here is worth the amount of work and money you're going to need to spend to seize it- not only keeping the client happy but also making yourself proud? Is the opportunity for a one-off print? Or is there a realistic chance of selling a few or more of these? Do you have a selling price and retail price fixed? The price has to be high enough to make the work and expense of getting to the print worthwhile. </li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>There is a cheaper way to get your medium format film scanned -- IF you have a good digital camera with a high megapixel count. I have a Sony NEX 7 and its 24.3 mp sensor provides me with 6000 x 4000 dpi images -- same as the high-end Nikon Coolscans. I've been duping film with it ever since I bought it. I have a dupe setup for 35mm that uses a slide and roll film stage and for medium format, I have a portable light table that I will carefully tape my film down on. I use a tripod with the light table and make sure the line of sight is exactly perpendicular to the film plane. For the lens, I have a Nikon 55mm Micro-Nikkor, which has proven itself to be a great performer, with extension tubes as necessary. I shoot at f/8, which is in the middle of the lens's sweet spot.</p>

<p>Duping in this fashion gives me critically sharp digital images with excellent dynamic range. Plus, I'm shooting in camera RAW, so the files aren't huge. I just convert to high-quality jpgs when I want to have prints made. High-quality jpegs are plenty good enough for anyone who isn't pixel peeping.</p>