digital files on photo paper

[Jeffrey Rogers <jeffreydrogers@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have also purchased the same scanner and plan to
purchase the Epson 2000p printer for my 6x17 and Xpan
pans. After testing, we found that PhotoShop does a
much better job interpolating and "rezzing up" the
files vs. letting the software in the scanner does. Is
it possible that your 35mm images might look better
using PhotoShop for the larger files? We have also
used Genuine Fractals, assuming there would be a huge
difference in image quality when going up to 30" or
40" prints. However, there was not a large difference.
The scans from the scanner seem to be better in
quality than the ones from Photo CD scans.

--- Robert Feinman <rdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Over the last six months I've started using a hybrid
> digital technology.
> Scan in film and print on ink jet printer.
> I bought an Epson 1600 scanner and an Epson 2000P
> printer. When I scan
> 6x7 or 4x5 transparencies I can print them at the
> max size of the
> printer (13x19) without any compromise. Scanning 35
> mm gives good
> (not excellent) prints up to 8 to 10x. I've been
> shooting a lot with
> a Noblex and I get 10x30 prints that look pretty
> good.
> 
> The main thing about digital printing is the
> control. I've always
> been frustrated by the lack of contrast control when
> printing color.
> Ciba prints have always blocked up at both ends and
> required extensive
> burning and dodging to make them reasonable. Kodak
> and Fuji reversal
> papers are only slightly easier. In addition I have
> many faded prints
> made over the past 20 or 30 years.
> With the digital prints lifetime is expected to be
> over 100 years.
> In addition to contrast control, there is select
> color correction that
> is not possible otherwise. For example making the
> grass greener or the
> sky
> bluer, etc. This is not falsifying the scene just
> adjusting for
> limitations
> in the film.
> 
> The rule of thumb is that you want a file that has
> 250-300 pixels per
> inch
> to send to the printer.
> Thus 4" x 1600 dpi = 6400 pixels, divided by 300
> yields up to 20x
> enlargement
> or a 80"x 100" print.
> For 35 mm 1"x1600/300 =5 or a 5x8 print. For 35 mm a
> specialized scanner
> at
> 4000 dpi would yield 13x19" print. 
> With the use of the new matte papers and proper
> adjustment of contrast
> it is
> possible to get full range prints without that
> plastic look that all
> color
> prints have had since RC papers were made the only
> color choice.
> 
> Personally I've never gotten prints larger than 8x10
> from 35 mm color
> slide
> film using conventional processing. Maybe if I shot
> slower film ( I use
> 100 
> speed) I could get 11x14 so even with my marginal
> for 35 mm film scanner
> I think prints are comparable.
> 
> For 120 film and 4x5 I think digital prints are now
> superior, except for
> the reproduction of some extreme colors where the
> inks are a little
> week.
> However, they are still better than the CMYK inks
> used in all printed
> publications.
> 
> If you are interested, see if you can get Epson to
> send you samples from
> their new 2000P printer. They include some with each
> printer to show off
> the differing papers, so they should be able to send
> copies.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Feinman


=====
Take care,
Jeff
http://www.jeffrogers.com
"There is a landscape greater than the one we see."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/