Print size ratio to Image Dimension.

  • Thread starter Thread starter David Napierkowski
  • Start date Start date
D

David Napierkowski

Years ago when I was considered a decent hand with a large format enlarger, the
quality rule of thumb I worked on was that an 11 x 14 enlargement from a
quality 35 mm B & W negative, all things being equal, was pretty much ideal.
16 x 20 enlargements were best saved for 6 x 7 cm and 4 x 5 inch B &W
negatives. This is an important issue to me because my entire image bank is
negative and transparancies; approximately 75 percent 35 mm, 20 percent 6 x 6
and 6 x 7 cm and five percent 4 x 5 inch for more than 25,000 images. (What can
I say, I've been shooting film for more than 50 years..

Does the above rule of thumb stand the digital printing litmus test as well or
should I really spend that extra $1,000 and get that Epson 4000? An inquiring
mind really needs to know. I really don't want to drop my pennies on a 2200 and
then at the end of the year drop a whole lot more on a 4000.

I have come to depend on the expertise of contributing members to this and the
scanner newsgroup. Paying critical attention I acquired an Epson 4870 for my
scanning needs, and it's perfect for my needs.

Thanks in advance.

David Napierkowski
 
David Napierkowski said:
Years ago when I was considered a decent hand with a large format enlarger, the
quality rule of thumb I worked on was that an 11 x 14 enlargement from a
quality 35 mm B & W negative, all things being equal, was pretty much ideal.
16 x 20 enlargements were best saved for 6 x 7 cm and 4 x 5 inch B &W
negatives. This is an important issue to me because my entire image bank is
negative and transparancies; approximately 75 percent 35 mm, 20 percent 6 x 6
and 6 x 7 cm and five percent 4 x 5 inch for more than 25,000 images. (What can
I say, I've been shooting film for more than 50 years..
Click to expand...
This seems to be still the case.
Does the above rule of thumb stand the digital printing litmus test as well or
should I really spend that extra $1,000 and get that Epson 4000? An inquiring
mind really needs to know. I really don't want to drop my pennies on a 2200 and
then at the end of the year drop a whole lot more on a 4000.
Click to expand...
How big of an image do you want to print? You can't print bigger than 13x19
on a 2200; if you need
a 16x20, then the 4000 is the one. By the way, some people say that
printing even the smaller sizes on the bigger ones (4000, 7600, etc) is
cheaper
than the smaller printers because the ink costs are so much less. The
cartridges do cost a lot, but they last a very long time.
Jim
 
You can't print bigger than 13x19
on a 2200; if you need
a 16x20, then the 4000 is the one. By the way, some people say that
printing even the smaller sizes on the bigger ones (4000, 7600, etc) is
cheaper >>
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input but here I am asking about hightist image quality on the
final print i.e. in B & W wet printing it's really a waste to print a 35 mm
negative at 16 x 20 inches.. well not really a waste but image quality
definately suffers. Thus in my pervious life 11 x 14 prints from a 35 mm
negative really seemed ideal. I suppose it could be stretched to 13 x 17 with
the 2200 but I have yet to print out any of my scans.

Point being if under optimal conditions outstanding 16 x 20 prints are capable
via a quality scan of a 35 mm image then I'd simply buy a (hah) save my
pennies and get the 4000. If not I'd probably be better off with the 2200 no?

Please remember I'm talking here about very high quality *Fine Art* type B & W
prints from the wet darkroom and asking about, all things being equal, what I
can expect from digital printing.

Thanks again

David N.
 
...the quality rule of thumb I worked on was that an 11 x 14 enlargement
from a quality 35 mm B & W negative, all things being equal, was pretty
much ideal. 16 x 20 enlargements were best saved for 6 x 7 cm and 4 x 5
inch B &W negatives.
Click to expand...

The size you can print to depends on the resolution of your scan and the
resolution you want to print at/find acceptable.

The Epson 4870 can scan at 4,800 spi. If you print at 240 dpi, then every
linear inch of neg will cover 20 inches of print. Print at 720 dpi and it
will cover 6.67 inches. To produce a print which (as an example) conforms
to the UK Fine Art Trade Guild's definition of a fine art print, you'd
have to print at 1,440 dpi, making each inch of neg cover just 3.33
inches. However, once you get past about 240 dpi it gets much harder to
discern any improvement in print quality with the naked eye from normal
viewing distances. By 720 dpi, you need a loupe to see the difference any
increase in dpi will give you. I can't see any difference between 1,440
dpi and 2,800 dpi, even with a loupe.

Assuming full-frame prints, I'd suggest that the 4x5s could easily be
printed larger than a 2200 will produce and the 6x6 and 6x7 will probably
be suitable for prints just bigger than the 2200's. By your percentage
estimates, that's around 6,250 photographs out of 25,000. For the
remaining ~19,000 35mm images, the 2200 will probably be adequate.

The software you use will also effect the size of print you can obtain.
Software like QImage can upscale images by using very good resampling
algorithms. Though this can't increase detail, it does cause more drops of
ink to be put down in any given area of the image (by allowing you to
print the same size image but at a higher dpi), smoothing out shade/colour
transitions and making the resulting image less blocky.

Also to be considered is the film grain, of course. If your negs are
fine-grained, you'll get away with larger prints than if they have a lot
of apparent grain, just as with wet printing.

I take it that you are aware that neither the 2200 nor the 4000 are
recommended for producing glossy prints?

Jon.
 
Assuming full-frame prints....>I take it that you are aware that neither the
Click to expand...
2200 nor the 4000 are >recommended for producing glossy prints ..

Yes exactly I cut my eye teeth composing full frame eliminating cropping to the
extent possible. The only routine cropping I do is with 6 x 6 cm negatives
force the image to comforn to the paper rectangle. I've never really cared for
*glossy* prints and have stayed with matte - semi matte, double weight printing
papers for many decades... Seagul. Brovera.. and Elite.

Useful observations regarding grain and upscaling. Thank you. As you can tell
I'm new at this degital revoluton and am feeling my way in a very empircal
manner. A fair percentage of my images are on XP-1, the 6 x 6 and larger TRIX
at 320 or TechPan.

Thanks again.

David N.
 
David Napierkowski said:
Thanks for the input but here I am asking about hightist image quality on the
final print i.e. in B & W wet printing it's really a waste to print a 35 mm
negative at 16 x 20 inches.. well not really a waste but image quality
definately suffers. Thus in my pervious life 11 x 14 prints from a 35 mm
negative really seemed ideal. I suppose it could be stretched to 13 x 17 with
the 2200 but I have yet to print out any of my scans.

Point being if under optimal conditions outstanding 16 x 20 prints are capable
via a quality scan of a 35 mm image then I'd simply buy a (hah) save my
pennies and get the 4000. If not I'd probably be better off with the 2200 no?

Please remember I'm talking here about very high quality *Fine Art* type B & W
prints from the wet darkroom and asking about, all things being equal, what I
can expect from digital printing.
Click to expand...
Not as good because only lately have inkjet makers realized that B&W
printing is important. What inkjet
printers need (IMHO) are black and dilute black cartridges. Those that I
have seen are lacking adequate gradation from
white to black.
Jim
 
What inkjet printers need (IMHO) are black and dilute black cartridges.
Click to expand...

That's what the Epson 2200 and 4000 have, though the dilute black is
known as 'light black'. There are also full inksets available for
monochromatic printing (though not from Epson).

Jon.
 
An excellent reference is "Mastering Digital Printing" by Harald
Johnson. None better IMHO. Amazon has it, if not available locally.
 
I take it that you are aware that neither the 2200 nor the 4000 are
recommended for producing glossy prints?
Click to expand...
Unless of course, you use a CIS like the one made by Permajet.
 
I take it that you are aware that neither the 2200 nor the 4000 are
recommended for producing glossy prints?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that tip. I must remember not to print glossy prints on my Epson
2100 again. Shame though as I do get quite good results :-)
 
CWatters said:
Thanks for that tip. I must remember not to print glossy prints on my Epson
2100 again. Shame though as I do get quite good results :-)
Click to expand...


PS: What defects am I meant to be seeing on glossy paper? I'm using TDK Pro
Photo Glossy 270g mostly.
 
PS: What defects am I meant to be seeing on glossy paper? I'm using TDK
Pro Photo Glossy 270g mostly.
Click to expand...

Bronzing or pooling. The pigment inks don't soak into the glossy coatings
very well.

I did say that they're /not recommended/ for producing glossy prints. I
know of people that have used them to produce glossy prints but I've yet
to see any that I'd consider acceptable and I've never heard, or read, of
anyone saying that it can produce good quality ones.

David says: 'Please remember I'm talking here about very high quality
*Fine Art* type B & W prints from the wet darkroom and asking about, all
things being equal, what I can expect from digital printing'. I don't
think he can expect glossy fine art prints from a 2100, though he can
expect matte fine art prints from one.

Jon.
 
Dye or pigment inks? I haven't yet heard of a pigment ink that works well
on gloss paper.
Click to expand...
Pigment and yes, it works well for most glossy papers. It took them a
year to develop it. That's the benefit of the independent ink makers.
:)

They make good papers too.

And no, I don't work for them or have any financial interest in them.
I just like their inks and paper.
 
Pigment and yes, it works well for most glossy papers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

Permajet's site suggests that the 2100 inks should be available soon. I'll
look out for the independent tests.

Jon.
 
Thanks for that. Very interesting.

Permajet's site suggests that the 2100 inks should be available soon. I'll
look out for the independent tests.
Click to expand...
The CIS colour system is available now (and attached to my Epson <g>).
The VX Blax system will be available in late 2004.
 
Thanks for that. Very interesting.

Permajet's site suggests that the 2100 inks should be available soon. I'll
look out for the independent tests.
Click to expand...
And PS,

economics - the Epson carts contain 14ml of ink. The CIS bottles
contain 125ml of ink. ;-)
 
Back
Top