Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davidada

30 x 40 inch M8 Prints

Recommended Posts

i've been trying to get a bit of info and this topic actually brushed on scanning.

 

Jack flesher and anyone who routinely scans. can i get very good scan quality from 35mm B&W and neg or chrome. to print say 13x19.

 

i'd really like to be able to also do medium and LF to 8x10.

 

the medium and LF are doable from current flatbeds but i've not been impressed with 35mm results.

 

any feedback

 

bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok just one question. I just got a small Epson R2400 and I'm still pretty new to printing. I also got not much time right now to go into it. ( I hope I will get some times in my winter break) I don't have a RIP for printing and your alway taltking about 1440 or 2880dpi. Now I can't really choose these settings in PS in my printer driver. I mean there is the quality written but not the dpi. Could someone tell me what settings 1440 or 2880dpi equal ?

 

( Epson driver got: " Photo, Optimal Photo and Photo RPM " )

 

 

Thanks a lot.

Christopher

 

I don't have this printer but did print with one recently at a freinds out of Mac OS X and there was the option for choosing 1440 or 2880 plus HI Speed, etc. You may have to just click an "advanced" tab in the print dialog box for them to show up. If thats not it, it should also explain in the Printer Manual where to choose this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i've been trying to get a bit of info and this topic actually brushed on scanning.

 

Jack flesher and anyone who routinely scans. can i get very good scan quality from 35mm B&W and neg or chrome. to print say 13x19.

 

i'd really like to be able to also do medium and LF to 8x10.

 

the medium and LF are doable from current flatbeds but i've not been impressed with 35mm results.

 

any feedback

 

bill

 

I agree that flatbeds don't cut it on 35mm and are even marginal on MF. But IMO they work very well with LF film. I get this question enough on other forums that I decided to post a crop from an 8x10 scan I am currently working on.

 

This shot was taken on 8x10 Fuji 160 Pro, a 1 minute exposure at f32. It was scanned on my Epson 4990 flatbed. It is not the best to show detail, but the chain is small and I think it tells the story of how well the flatbeds can do on LF film... There was only very slight capture sharpening applied during the scan and NO further sharpening in post! Also, the colors are true to the scene at the time of capture. The crop you see is 600 x 600 pixels and equivalent to a 2x2 INCH (5x5 cm) section of what would be a 40" x 50" (100x125cm) print. (Finally note that the CA shown on the post is from the taking lens and not the scanner -- it is visible on the neg under a strong loupe. However, it is so small that it is only about 1/4mm wide on the 40x50 inch print and thus barely visible even in the large print.)

 

Give the page a second to load as there are some large images on it: Jack's Blog

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok just one question. I just got a small Epson R2400 and I'm still pretty new to printing. I also got not much time right now to go into it. ( I hope I will get some times in my winter break) I don't have a RIP for printing and your alway taltking about 1440 or 2880dpi. Now I can't really choose these settings in PS in my printer driver. I mean there is the quality written but not the dpi. Could someone tell me what settings 1440 or 2880dpi equal ?

 

( Epson driver got: " Photo, Optimal Photo and Photo RPM " )

 

 

Thanks a lot.

Christopher

 

I don't use a 2400, but I *think* Photo is 720, Photo Optimal is 1440 and Photo RPM is something weird like 5760x1440. You should be able to find the exact specs in your user manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm sure that I cehcked the manual several times and searched in the pdf for dpi or similiar, but I found nothing at all... perhaps it's just the time or is it really so difficult to find ..

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen hype David... but this comment about the M8 files maybe even being better than 4x5 quality has to take the cake. I blew coffee all over my monitor on that one!

 

I have a DMR and an Epson 9600. I've been printing with Epson wide format printers since the 9500 and have experimented with every interpolation algorithm possible. The DMR files hit the wall at something under 20x30" enlargement. They just go flat and look, well... just plain digital. One can add noise to the file to get more of a film look... but there is no way you're going to take a DMR file above 20x30 and have it look better than a 35mm chrome transparency, especially Kodachrome, that is properly exposed, shot on a heavy tripod with mirror locked, cable release, and using the optimum aperture of the lens. I've done the tests and it's no contest. Digital may look fantastic up to around 16x24... but it rapidly falls apart from that point on.

 

This only confirms to me that everyone has different standards and that one person's Chevy is another person's Mercedes.

 

Had I known what I know now... I would not have bought the DMR as I was looking for something that would enable me to print larger than scanned 35mm film. I asked many pros for their opinions prior to buying the DMR and none said that 16 megapixel files of even the Kodak medium format back would look sharp and clean at 30x40. Several people who contribute to this forum have even indicated to me in private emails that the DMR files won't go even 20x30 and not have that digital look. Obviously they have standards that are higher than mine.

 

I've been extremely happy with the DMR files for making smaller prints as the "look" is just plain gorgeous. I have shots of hummingbirds shot with my 100 APO macro that are superior to anything I have ever done with film... but those prints are only 8x8" or so. The clarity of the DMR files is absolutely stunning in this range. But try and print large (and by large I mean over 20x30) and those qualities fade very quickly. I'll take film any day for extreme enlargements.

 

Shoot a fishing boat sometime with nets piled on the deck. Use a Series 5 Gitzo, Arca Swiss head, APO lens at 5.6 to 8, mlu and cable release. Then interpolate that image 20x30" and view it at even 50% on your screen. The net is mush and there is no detail. There simply aren't enough pixels to capture that kind of information on a 10 megapixel sensor. I'm not bashing Leica (or the Kodak sensor) here. I'm simply stating a fact.

 

Don't take my word for it. Just read the Charles Cramer report on the P45 vs scanned 4x5 film report on the luminous landscape website. Cramer states: "For the next few days, I kept looking at these digitally-captured 30x40-sized prints, and comparing them to the prints from 4x5 film. The film still had a slight edge, but I eventually decided that I would be proud to show one of these P45 prints, even in 30x40 size!"

 

So by your calculations, the M8 produces files superior to the P45. And the M8 has the same sensor as the DMR... with a few minor improvements.

 

Now you're telling readers of this forum that with respect to files from the M8: "Looks like a 4x5 scan (maybe even better)!" I think you've given new meaning to the word hype!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, In talking to imageprint they say do not upsize before sending print into imageprint, just resize it and imageprints dithering ability with take care of the quality of the print better than upsizing in other programs. This is also on their cd manual provided with the program. I forget what part it is in but it should be easy to find. Our printing professional could you comment on this. I mean that title with respect not condiscending. Thanks Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicaman - I guess we do all have different standards, I don't know how you make your living - but I make mine by producing exhibition prints for the world's leading image makers, do you?

I scan and print thousands of files a year from a wide variety of film stock, the studio is constantly beta testing and aquiring new software and hardware to stay ahead of the pack

In my experience the M8 outperforms in the prints that I produce any 35mm film stock I have used.

I am preparing an article with examples showing comparitive examples from 35/645/6x9/4x5 and the M8 to illustrate this - look for more info on the aricle on this forum.

As I have mentioned before not all scanners and film are created equal and certainly not the capability of everyone to produce prints of quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't know how you make your living - but I make mine by producing exhibition prints for the world's leading image makers, do you?"

 

Quite an arrogant statement, David. I think there are quite a few image makers around the world who would take exception to that statement. You're digging quite a hole for yourself here.

 

I make exhibition prints for myself. I make my living selling those prints.

 

Your original posting stated (regarding output of the M8): "Looks like a 4x5 scan (maybe even better)!" Now you're saying "In my experience the M8 outperforms in the prints that I produce any 35mm film stock I have used."

 

Sounds like a little bit of backpeddling... don't you think? Don't mean to be contentious here... but 35mm drum scans are just a wee bit different than 4x5 scans, and it was your claims about 4x5 scans compared to the M8 output that I took exception to. And your thoughts on Charles Cramer's findings... or do you not think that the Heidelberg Tango scanners or Cramers ability to get quality scans from the Tango are up to your standards?

 

"As I have mentioned before not all scanners and film are created equal and certainly not the capability of everyone to produce prints of quality." I can't disagree with anything that so clearly states the obvious.

 

I can't wait to see your forthcoming article that proves your contention that M8 files surpass 4x5 scans. Leica will be very happy and P45 owners will be very disappointed. But that's good for those of us who can't afford the P45...

 

I commend your excellence in printing as I know of no one else would ever make such a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"

Quite an arrogant statement, David. I think there are quite a few image makers around the world who would take exception to that statement. You're digging quite a hole for yourself here. .

 

Perhaps you may want to look at this.

 

Any of you not familiar with David Adamson should check out the following links

 

http://www.dpandi.com/adamson/index.html

 

http://www.adamsoneditions.com

 

He is one of the world's preeminent digital printmakers. He would know what he is talking about.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

-Carlos Loret de Mola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leicaman94044 of lawrence--

You are right, David made a pretty big statement.

 

It may seem over the top to you. But to accuse him of 'hype' seems a bit of a reach. "Hype" usually refers to 'extravagant promotional publicity' according to my dictionary. In my reading, when David made the claim, he had to show some pretty good work to substantiate it, and I think he has done just that.

 

There really doesn't seem to be any need for rudeness from your side, leicaman94044 of lawrence.

 

Are you also shooting an M8? How would you compare it to other cameras you use?

 

Just for the record, what brand of coffee did you 'blow all over your monitor'? I'm sure it's of good quality, and I'd like to try some.

 

Thanks.

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I have not used Davids services but I have blown up many DMR files to 30 x 40 on a Lambda with excellent results. Having both the DMR and the M8 i would expect the same if not better from the M8. Frankly i would consider his statement as honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the dpandi article and did not realize who David was. I have had the fortune to attend a week long printing class at cone editions in vermont. If you read the article you would see that David is one of the original developers of the modern day inkjet printing that we all enjoy. I haven't shot the m8 but I can't beleive that David would put his reputation on the line( a very strong reputation at that) unless he was sure of his statement. One thing everyone should understand is that a person of this ability and expertise would put those that think they are good printers(myself included) to absolute shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

 

You've got to concede that comparing a 10MP digital capture to a drum scanned

4x5 image (unless you are only scanning the 4x5 to 30Mb) pretty much flies in the

face of most of our collective previous assumptions and experience.

 

I don't dispute your credentials for a second but I have a tough time believing this

one without some evidence.

 

Perhaps you could post a reasonably sized crop,after resizing for large format output,

so that we can evaluate for ourselves?

Perhaps,something from the right hand side that includes the white sign and some

of the peeling blue paint.

 

Thanks,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My intention was not to put into question David's printing skills. His client list speaks volumes about his printing abilities.

 

I took exception to his comment that M8 files "looked like a 4x5 scan (perhaps even better)!" I quoted from Charles Cramers review of the P45 on luminous-landscape.com, a review in which Charles compared 4x5 drum scans from a Heidelberg Tango to the files from a 39 megapixel P45. His conclusion was "I kept looking at these digitally-captured 30x40-sized prints, and comparing them to the prints from 4x5 film. The film still had a slight edge, but I eventually decided that I would be proud to show one of these P45 prints, even in 30x40 size!"

 

To translate this, Cramer is saying that scanned 4x5 film is still slightly ahead of a 39 megapixel file from a state of the art scanning back. David has stated that the M8 with it's 10 megapixel sensor has output that is "perhaps even better" than scanned 4x5 film. And so it follows (by David's comment) that if the M8's output "looks like a 4x5 scan (perhaps even better)", he is implying that it is possibly better than a large print made from a P45 digital file. This is what I am questioning.

 

If this is the case, then I stand corrected and I apologize for any implied "rudeness".

 

HC: My only digital camera is the DMR. My experience is with printing on Epsons ranging from the 9500 to the 10000 to the 9600 with 35mm scanned film, medium format scanned film and DMR files. Virtually every image I make is tripod mounted with mirror locked, whenever possible. I attempt to optimize the quality of my image capture whenever possible as my clients are forever asking for larger prints. Once can only enlarge 35mm so much before it falls apart. Medium format is not practical for some of the work I do, so I am limited to 35mm film or DMR capture as the high res medium format backs are out of my price range.

 

I was hoping that the DMR would allow me to print larger than 35mm as I would be able to travel without lugging hundreds of rolls of film through numerous xray machines. I have not found this to be the case... and I have done hundreds of hours of testing on this point. There simply are not enough pixels in a 10 megapixel file to resolve minute detail in a given subject when that subject is to be printed 30x40" or larger. I have also had several digital files printed (on inkjet printers) by custom labs and I saw no improvement in detail/resolution over what I am able to achieve with my 9600.

 

Unless the M8 files are a quantum improvement over the DMR files, I don't see any way the M8 files can compare with or surpass 4x5 scanned film (and by Cramers test results P45 output). That is the issue here and that is what my comment is directed at.

 

My remark about "arrogance" was with respect to David's comment "I don't know how you make your living - but I make mine by producing exhibition prints for the world's leading image makers, do you?"

 

From such a statement, it necessarily follows that one cannot be considered one of the world's leading image makers unless David prints their images (by David's definition). I am in no way suggesting that I am in this exclusive group, but this comment implies that one cannot be a part of this group unless they engage David's services as a printer.

 

Guy: from what I've seen and understand about Lambda and Lightjet printers, they can work with a smaller input file (150 dpi) and offer higher accutance than inkjet printers. David's comments, I'm assuming, were made with respect to inkjet printers (and possibly Iris). It may be possible that DMR files can be enlarged more on Lambda and Lightjet printers. I have no experience with these... so I'm in no position to judge. You have a good eye and I know you to be very rigorous in your image capture. Have you seen the same Lambda printed images printed on an inkjet printer? I'd be interested to hear your take,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy