AaronFalkenberg

<p>It's pretty simple: take the scanning resolution and multiply by the film size. Take these pixel dimensions and divide them by your output resolution (the resolution of your printer, usually between 250 and 360dpi). This will give you your printed size.<br />Example: 2.4" x 2400ppi = 5760 pixels, 3" x 2400ppi = 7200 pixels<br />5760/360 and 7200/360 = 16x20" print size<br />This same file, if printed at a resolution of 250dpi would be about 23x28" although at this size and resolution it might not stand up to close scrutiny.<br />If you are doing any kind of editing of the scans, I highly recommend you get them in 16bit. At this depth, the files will be about 120-180MB. If you don't have any extensive edits in mind, then 8bit should fit your budget since it results in files that are half the size.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have printed 42" through the straight-through path. To print color that long, I needed the Colorburst RIP, for B+W QTR will work or, again, CB RIP. Come framing time, the print was just over 1/16" skewed, but that didn't matter as it was cut and dry mounted.<br>

I had my printer temporarily on a slightly uneven surface, and it was doing exactly as you decribe. I was framing a full 17x25" sheet at that time with relatively tight borders and it caused some serious headaches. I soon moved the printer back onto a solid desk, and it feeds parallel now.<em> </em></p>

<p>I ordered the turnkey kit a while back (comes with everything you need to fluid scan immediately). Yes, a squeegee of some kind is essential since it pulls any air bubbles out from between the layers. Ordering on their site is a bit clunky. I ended up sending an e-mail confirmation of my entire order to Julio, just to make sure I got everything. I did, and at the time, I had never done any fluid scanning, and found the manual to be very clear. I takes just a bit of practice to get the mylar sheets on evenly, but the whole operation is pretty easy and quick. The main problem I have found is that I live in a dry house, with dogs, and I always end up with some dust on the outside of the scan "sandwich." As you've probably heard, fluid mounting does a good job of concealing dust and scratches on the film itself, but any dust on the outside of the mount will show up. I try to elimiate it as best I can with canned air before putting the plate on my scanner. </p>

<p>I swear by the Scanscience kit, can't speak to DF's kit. Here are two 1600dpi 100% crops taken from the middle and edge of a 4x5 frame with the stock Epson holder and the Scanscience fluid mount. No sharpening has been applied.<br>

I also really like the Lumina fluid. It lasts a long time (great for slow scans with multisampling) and doesn't leave a residue. Some people have said that the scanscience kit isn't as accurate for height calibartion, but I haven't had a problem finding the precise height with the masks. <br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM_no.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="355" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM_yes.jpg" alt="" width="433" height="343" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM2_no.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="357" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM2_yes.jpg" alt="" width="447" height="347" /></p>

<p>I swear by the scanscience kit, can't comment about DF's kit. These are two 100% crops taken from the middle and side of the frames respectively. </p>

<p>You don't say where you are located, but Technicare is the go to place for many professionals in my area (Edmonton). They also have offices in Burnaby, Calgary, and Winnipeg. Their REOS (remote order entry system) is feature rich allowing you to choose many, many different sizes, and surfaces from matte to metallic and canvas. You can also put together picture packages. They use a Chromira printer.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.technicare.com/">http://www.technicare.com/</a> </p>

<p>PhotoRag is a good choice in matte papers, so is Moab Entrada. For portraits, though I don't do many of them, I would probably avoid a heavily textured paper like William Turner or German Etching.<br>

For gloss, it kind of depends on what printer you are using and how archival you want the prints to be. There are excellent gloss papers from Hahnemuehle, Illford, Epson, Inkpress and others. Many have sample packs, and it's fun to see exactly how a paper impacts an image. </p>

<p>Hahnemuehle PhotoRag or Photo Rag Bright White,<br>

and Moab Entrada/Entrada Bright White are also excellent papers with similar characteristics.</p>

<p>And even in a traditional darkroom, pinpoint registration is extremely difficult.</p>

<p>I've been down this road, and for any automatic alignmnet software it will be nothing but headaches. It's nigh impossible to get the same crop and crop size between two sheets of film. HDR alignment software like that found in Photomatix is great for pixel sized shifts and moving objects within the image like tree branches or ripples in water. With a scan, however, most of the time you end up with two near idential shots, but with the introduction of the scanning processes, two files that are shifted slightly compared to one another. It's been my experience that Photomatix, Enfuse, etc. can't overly and align an entirely shifted image. The former won't even attempt it if the images are even 1 pixel out of identical image dimensions.<br>

Your best bet is to make two, or at most three shots. Scan them, and then manually align them as layers in PS, adjusting opacity, contrast, etc. to suit. It's really no more work than properly using the available HDR software. </p>

<p>"My favorite color film is Fuji Astia for its lower contrast and very fine grain though others prefer Velvia for its higher saturation."<br>

I swear by Provia - best of both worlds ;-)<br>

I like Bruce's answer, but depending on where you are it could be nigh impossible to get large neg film developed.</p>

<p>Depends, some people like the slight warm/red tone a skylight filter adds. I've never been very fond of it, and these things are super quick to adjust in PS to taste. I do, however, use an 81A or B (a slightly yellow filter which blocks UV) quite often, especially at altitude.<br>

Try it with the skylight and see if you like the results. There are, of course, those people who argue against putting any kind of cheap filter in front of the lens. </p>

<p>Vista x64 SP1 and Epson 3800 works perfectly for me. I've got mine networked and the only niggle I encountered was that either my computer or the Epson network card didn't want to automatically acquire an IP address, so I had to manually enter one. Since then (8 months ago) its been totally smooth sailing. Best B+W prints I have ever made.</p>

<p>I know that ZBE designed the circuitry for the LEDs, but I don't know exactly who manufactures them. </p>

You bet it will, since interpolation is making something out of nothing. You don't say how large the file is to begin with, so the question is, "by how much?" If you've got a well exposed, detailed image to start with, a little interpolation is rarely noticeable. Once, out of curiosity, I interpolated an 11x14" 360dpi scanned 4x5" to 24x30", and compared it to one natively scanned to 24x30" @ 360dpi. The difference in detail was apparent.

 

I was under the impression the "I" word was strictly forbidden by stock agencies.

Ditto Robert. If you really want gloss, and apparently supperior color longevity according to Wilhelm, "splurge" for an R1900. The gloss is so much better than the 2200 or even the 3800, but the latter still rules for B+W, gloss or otherwise on Harman Baryta.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Yes and no. I have done this, but not with that paper. I've done this with glossy papers, and it works well enough. You'll need some way of flattening the paper preferably before printing, but not necessarily. It will become more difficult to feed, print (head strikes if you aren't careful) and decurl as the roll gets closer to the core. Also, if you plan to print 16" wide, make sure you have cut the sheet square! For framing, if you don't trim to the image and drymount, i.e., frame the image as it sits on the page, and it's not square, it will be impossible to matte.

 

Velvet Fine art comes in 17x22" 25sheets for $156. That's $0.017/sq.in. or $2.4/sq.ft

 

Somerset 24"x50' roll is 189. That's $0.013/sq.in or $1.87/sq.ft

 

Does that price difference outweigh the added effort on your part? For me, it didn't. Partly because I don't have anything that will give me a square corner across 24" and I didn't want to decurl the paper. If you can handle these things, then yes, it is very cost effective.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

It is extremely difficult to show consitent B+W across programs, let alone across platforms. Part of the problem is IE is not color space aware, and that includes applied gray gammas such as 2.2 or 1.8. You probably converted to sRGB, which basically reduces everything to a "lowest common denomonator" so that it looks "similar" in a color space aware program like PS, and one that is not, like IE. I find that I still need to increase the midtones slightly to get a closer approximation between the two. But, this all goes out the window if someone with a different monitor happens to be viewing them with a different gamma.

I can't speak to Kami, but Lumina seems to work great. It evaporates very slowly. I don't use a plastic holder, but rather mount to a glass sheet on the top side, and put it on the scan science holder. After several years of use, my film is still the same as it's always been.

 

Heller, you should ask Julio Fernandez over at ScanScience. He's really knowledgeable, and they have kits for practically every scanner imagineable.

Hi,

 

I need to print borderless 16x20, on some thicker material. I use an Epson 3800 and borderless printing is not

supported through the front. Does anyone know if Colorburst X-Proof will allow that?

 

Thanks very much,

Aaron

If you're on a budget but still demand quality, Ikpress Fiber Gloss is an archival smooth gloss paper in the vein of the newest baryta papers from the likes of Harman, et al.

Though not quite the quality of Lee, Cokin has their "Z-Pro" range which is specifically designed for wideangle+wide diameter MF lenses. The holder won't vignette.

 

Gels are also great! Just be careful if it's a windy day.

You'll be able to pick up the particular qualities of any film with that scanner. I don't use a lot of color neg film, but I like Kodak Portra 160. For B+W, I use TMax 100. The stuff scans beautifully. I've also seen good results from Fuji Neopan Acros.

I used to be an ardent user of QTR, until I got the 3800 and tried its Advanced B+W mode. I haven't used QTR since. Have you tried the Advanced B+W mode on the 9880?