How big can a print be?

[jaimiepeeters]

Hi guys

It will be the first time I'm going to have a photo I took printed for our living room. It's also a test to see how the result is so that I might start selling prints to whoever is interested.

Now I've always sent my assignments in 300dpi JPEG to the client for their magazine or lookbook or whatever. But what do I need to lookout for when sending an image in for a print for myself.

Is there a difference in having a print from a negative directly or having a print from the, in Photoshop, edited digital file?

I shoot with a Leica M6 35mm, so that's the negative. I scan at 2400 dpi with a Plustek 7400 scanner and Silverfast software, post in PS. So that's the digital file.

What I really really dislike is when you see the tiny squares of the digital file, would really want to avoid that.

so any advice and experience is welcome!

[Athiril]

Tiny squares? You mean compression artefacts?

Save with maximum quality when using JPEG output, that's 100% in save for web under jpeg, and 12 under save as. Otherwise use TIFF ouput etc.

The Plustek 7400 can resolve 3800 dpi, but you need to scan at max setting of 7200 dpi and then downsize it in Photoshop (or you can keep it at 7200 dpi size I guess, but the file size is much larger, just empty data, and slower to work with in PS).

I would recommend doing that with the file to be test printed. As well, there'll be more detail from a good neg. And your goal is see the maximum quality results achievable in your workflow at large prints, right?

[jordanstarr]

I shoot the same setup and scan my negs. I've had 8x10s printed digitally from a scan on a Nikon 8000ED and I didn't like it, even at 4000dpi. I would just get a printer to print the negative, especially if you're going to have it as a large piece for your living room and hate the pixels. If you insist on a digital print, get a drum scan of your finals as the quality is quite a bit better from examples I've seen of 35mm scans to print.

[thegman]

How big do you need? I think this would be a time where I'd consider sending it away for a drum scan. Does not need to be that expensive, and you'll know that you've got about as much detail as it's possible to get out of that negative.

I think by tiny squares, you mean seeing the pixels of the JPEG? If you scan at the highest possible resolution on your Plustek, or indeed any scanner, you may not resolve any more detail, but it will make the JPEG's dimension larger, and you're less likely to see any pixels. You won't see any more detail, but round, irregularly shaped grains are more pleasing to the eye than enlarged pixels.

[jaimiepeeters]

For this kind of print I will definitely send it away for printing. But as you say 'send it in for a drumscan' ... than I would handover the negative without any edits. If I take this route, than can I get the scan back, edit it and send it back in for printing?

Wow I didn't know that about scanning at 7200i will show less pixels! I also thought that the maximum true resolution was 2400 not 3800, so I will scan my negs at 3800 in the future for myself and 7200 if I want it printed.

I would like to have my prints sold at about A2 but if I were to do an expo they can easily become A0.

[Sparrow]

A2 is probably a bit optimistic from 135 film, I have c-prints made up to 12x18, I have had a Canon ink-jet made at 48x72 from a cv 12mm which looks very impressive but of course it's pretty soft when one looks closely ... I scan at 5400dpi btw the big print was interpolated in photoshop

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

In the Image Size setting in photoshop, make it 300dpi and the final output size. If you scanned at 300 dpi, you'll see the maximum output size possible when you first open the image size settings box. Its probably around 11x14 inches. Most 35mm negs don't look good printed bigger than that anyway, no matter how high a scan resolution you use, because of the grain of the small film.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

A2 is probably a bit optimistic from 135 film, I have c-prints made up to 12x18, I have had a Canon ink-jet made at 48x72 from a cv 12mm which looks very impressive but of course it's pretty soft when one looks closely ... I scan at 5400dpi btw the big print was interpolated in photoshop

I remember seeing large prints of Steve McCurry's not so long ago, all printed very large (minimum 3 feet wide on the short end), all from Kodachrome slides. Needless to say I was quite impressed, and it redefined what I saw as achievable from 35mm. Not sure what his printing process was, but shows what is possible. I haven't seen any of Salgado's work in person, but would imagine before he shot digitally that he was able to get similar output from the 35mm frame, although it seems to be known that part of his printers processes would involve making a 5x4 copy negative from the original 35mm negative.

[jordanstarr]

...Kodachrome slides are in a whole different ballpark than black and white film negatives when scanned and printed.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Murchu

I remember seeing large prints of Steve McCurry's not so long ago, all printed very large (minimum 3 feet wide on the short end), all from Kodachrome slides. Needless to say I was quite impressed, and it redefined what I saw as achievable from 35mm. Not sure what his printing process was, but shows what is possible. I haven't seen any of Salgado's work in person, but would imagine before he shot digitally that he was able to get similar output from the 35mm frame, although it seems to be known that part of his printers processes would involve making a 5x4 copy negative from the original 35mm negative.

Yes, I've seen those large prints of McCurry's, in fact the gallery had one of the Afgan Girl that was perhaps 30ft tall on the outside of the building ... as I said they look spectacular at a normal viewing distance, but the flaws show close up ... and I suspect both McCurry and Salgado are prepared to pay their printer more than I am.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by jordanstarr

...Kodachrome slides are in a whole different ballpark than black and white film negatives when scanned and printed.

Why? ... it's a pain to scan in my experience

[jaimiepeeters]

I've seen large prints of Bruce Gilden and Meyerowitz (his street photography). Also Eric Kim, Charlie Zirk and likes do expos of A2 size prints.

I don't know how but saying it shouldn't be done ..... I don't know.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by jaimiepeeters

I've seen large prints of Bruce Gilden and Meyerowitz (his street photography). Also Eric Kim, Charlie Zirk and likes do expos of A2 size prints.

I don't know how but saying it shouldn't be done ..... I don't know.

Big prints are pretty popular nowadays, but either they have to be shown in a setting that makes everybody stand back, or (I find) they eventually turn out a great way to turn good pics into soup at close distance.

There is a point of diminishing returns when printing 135 film and I find that blowing up the 24mm negative width into more than about 12-15 inches of width rarely looks good, depending also on the film of course.

[sepiareverb]

I don't know much about printing from scanned film but to say that a print larger than 11x14 from 35mm will not look good is simply not true. I regularly print on 16x20" paper from 35mm, and occasionally on 20x24" paper. A good lens when making the negative, careful processing of the film, and a well tuned enlarger with a good lens will certainly allow beautiful prints much bigger than 11x14". The current slow films like Rollei Ortho and the Adox CMS will allow for substantially larger prints than 20x24" with little or no grain to be seen. Sure, that forty year old 23C and Nikon 50/4 or Beslar 3.5 lens is not going to get one there. But any commercial darkroom can do this well.

And this notion that grain is bad and ruins an image? Then how can Tri-X be the general "most favorite film" ever? And why are digital files always so lifeless? If you don't like grain just shoot a slower film (or a Delta film) and process it properly. Not rocket surgery.

For enlargements from digital files Perfect Resize works wonders. I recently had a 30x40" print at 240dpi made on an Epson 9890 from an M9 file (the image below, shot handheld with a 35/1.4 pre-ASPH) that was stunning. Zero artifacts and smooth crisp lines. Never tried Perfect Resize with a film scan, but I'd expect it should allow for at least some further enlargement.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by jaimiepeeters

For this kind of print I will definitely send it away for printing. But as you say 'send it in for a drumscan' ... than I would handover the negative without any edits. If I take this route, than can I get the scan back, edit it and send it back in for printing?

Wow I didn't know that about scanning at 7200i will show less pixels! I also thought that the maximum true resolution was 2400 not 3800, so I will scan my negs at 3800 in the future for myself and 7200 if I want it printed.

I would like to have my prints sold at about A2 but if I were to do an expo they can easily become A0.

Yes, you'd get the good scan back, edit as required, then print.

Scanning at 7200dpi will not get you any more detail, but basically you get enlarged grains, not enlarged pixels, looks a lot smoother. There may not be more detail, but it looks like there is!

[BobYIL]

If you see the tiny squares then scan at higher dpi.. I use Minolta Scan Elite II and with the native resolution a B&W frame (mostly Ilford HP series 35mm) gives above 30MB and color (Velvia 50) above 90MB. If I enlarge the color to say 300cm (11.226 x 7.234) , I can see the grains but still no squares.

[astro8]

How large do you want to print? A lot depends on your definition of what is acceptable, the viewing distance, the subject matter, colour, b&w etc.

It also depends on how you prepare the file, what printer it will be printed on and who prints it and if they do some prep on the file in PS or just let the RIP enlarge it. The final output also depends on the quality of the RIP, profiles, how many passes, dpi they are running the printer at and at how many dpi they send it to their printer. Regardles of what they tell you a lot of operaters reduce the dpi of the file if printing at large sizes so the file won't choke their RIP and workflow

I have a file here now from a 5D that I'm prepping for printing at 4000mm x 2700mm...and that's after it's cropped.

If you give me a rough idea of the final size you're thinking of I can give you some feedback on how to prepare your file.

[jaimiepeeters]

Thanks! I want to have it about A2 at least.. A1 even better.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I have been printing 35mm at 24x36 inches since the '80s (Cibachrome). In the past printers used internegatives, now high resolution drum scans.

Don't follow the close distance comments -- who looks at large prints at 6 inches?

Judging by the kind of arrangements I've seen in some exhibitions, I'm not so sure of that. Basically you can print 24x36mm on a billboard and if you give it the kind of space normally reserved for billboards it's going to look OK. You're probably not going to hang those 24x36" Cibachromes in your corridor, Fred, but some people probably would.

[robklurfield]

Adox CMS 20 II scanned by Epson V700. I imagine a skilled printer (Bob/Sepiareverb for example) could print this very large from film to a silver print.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by robklurfield

Adox CMS 20 II scanned by Epson V700. I imagine a skilled printer (Bob/Sepiareverb for example) could print this very large from film to a silver print.

Hi Rob,

would it bother you to put into your post a slightly smaller version of your image, one that isn't 2048 pixels wide and widens the whole page, breaking the line breaks in this thread for everyone?

I am looking at this on a 1280x800 screen and after your image I can not read a single posting in this thread anymore without scrolling left and right. You can still link to your Flickr gallery if you want people to have access to the full-resolution version, but putting the huge version in the thread directly is not really the best way to go IMHO.

[robklurfield]

Rxmd... apologies. Done.

[Athiril]

OP if you are referring to grain, looking at grain closeup isn't necessarily going to translate how it will blend into the print. You're looking close up at different magnification and viewing distance than the print.

If your results are too grainy, or noisy from scanner noise, it could be due to exposure + processing conditions, working on optimising those may help. As would be using Xtol for higher detail with finer grained images than developers like ID-11 and D-76. Then there is always perceptol if it's still too offensive for you.

Otherwise at that point, a naturally finer grain film might be what you want.

What is your workflow?

Film, developer & dilution, time and temp. Lab-process film?

Originally Posted by thegman

Yes, you'd get the good scan back, edit as required, then print.

Scanning at 7200dpi will not get you any more detail, but basically you get enlarged grains, not enlarged pixels, looks a lot smoother. There may not be more detail, but it looks like there is!

You need to scan at 7200dpi to get the most from the scanner, it's placed at 3800 dpi resolving power. It is like how you need a 300 lp/mm lens to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm film, or a 300 lp/mm film to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm lens. Etc.

You may not necessarily be getting that high detail level on your film though to be able to see and make use of that difference however.

[roboflick]

Frank Green at the Lab Ciba, has made me beautiful 20 by 30 cibachromes from 35mm dr5 processed efke 25 and velvia 50 and 100. They look great!

I would recommend his services highly
Nik

[Athiril]

Just got back, made a test print optically at 5x7" with 35mm Neopan 400 processed in Xtol Replenished, there is grain in the highlights easily visible, not offensive, otherwise looks good. If you're a grainophobe, you may want to weigh up film/developer combinations.