Print size ratio to Image Dimension.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

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
25 answers Last reply
More about print size ratio image dimension
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "David Napierkowski" <focaipoint@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040611130833.29967.00000556@mb-m22.aol.com...
    >
    > 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..
    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.
    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
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >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 >>

    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.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <20040611130833.29967.00000556@mb-m22.aol.com>,
    focaipoint@aol.com (David Napierkowski) wrote:

    > ...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.

    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.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >
    >Assuming full-frame prints....>I take it that you are aware that neither the
    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.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "David Napierkowski" <focaipoint@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040611150803.11585.00000938@mb-m04.aol.com...
    > >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 >>
    >
    > 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.
    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
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <OHGyc.254$zl5.137@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, j.n@nospam.com
    (Jim) wrote:

    > What inkjet printers need (IMHO) are black and dilute black cartridges.

    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.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    An excellent reference is "Mastering Digital Printing" by Harald
    Johnson. None better IMHO. Amazon has it, if not available locally.


    On 12 Jun 2004 03:58:07 GMT, focaipoint@aol.com (David Napierkowski)
    wrote:

    >>
    >>Assuming full-frame prints....>I take it that you are aware that neither the
    >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.
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:01 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:


    >I take it that you are aware that neither the 2200 nor the 4000 are
    >recommended for producing glossy prints?
    >
    Unless of course, you use a CIS like the one made by Permajet.

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <8mbnc0hqlqr1s6vh07elk1h8f3kia0iepl@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > Unless of course, you use a CIS like the one made by Permajet.

    Dye or pigment inks? I haven't yet heard of a pigment ink that works well
    on gloss paper.

    Jon.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
    news:memo.20040612020108.1660D@blue.compulink.co.uk...

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

    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 :-)
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:Po3zc.155160$dC5.7768184@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    > "Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
    > news:memo.20040612020108.1660D@blue.compulink.co.uk...
    >
    > > I take it that you are aware that neither the 2200 nor the 4000 are
    > > recommended for producing glossy prints?
    >
    > 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 :-)


    PS: What defects am I meant to be seeing on glossy paper? I'm using TDK Pro
    Photo Glossy 270g mostly.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jon O'Brien" posted:
    "... There are also full inksets available for
    monochromatic printing (though not from Epson).
    ...."

    Inkjet Mall ... a subsidiary of Cone Editions.
    http://www.inkjetmall.com/


    "Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
    news:memo.20040612193909.1788A@blue.compulink.co.uk...
    > In article <OHGyc.254$zl5.137@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, j.n@nospam.com
    > (Jim) wrote:
    >
    > > What inkjet printers need (IMHO) are black and dilute black cartridges.
    >
    > 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.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <Gq3zc.155163$fK5.7796833@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be (CWatters) wrote:

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

    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.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <RS3zc.37062$TR1.9096@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
    rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net (RSD99) wrote:

    > "Jon O'Brien" posted:
    > "... There are also full inksets available for
    > monochromatic printing (though not from Epson).
    > ..."
    >
    > Inkjet Mall ... a subsidiary of Cone Editions.
    > http://www.inkjetmall.com/
    >

    Lyson, MIS and Piezography too.

    Jon.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:42 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <8mbnc0hqlqr1s6vh07elk1h8f3kia0iepl@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> Unless of course, you use a CIS like the one made by Permajet.
    >
    >Dye or pigment inks? I haven't yet heard of a pigment ink that works well
    >on gloss paper.
    >
    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.

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <ut2qc0p5s4dt8n86iqk05pner7clcubdpe@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > Pigment and yes, it works well for most glossy papers.

    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.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:04 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <ut2qc0p5s4dt8n86iqk05pner7clcubdpe@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> Pigment and yes, it works well for most glossy papers.
    >
    >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.
    >
    The CIS colour system is available now (and attached to my Epson <g>).
    The VX Blax system will be available in late 2004.

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:04 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <ut2qc0p5s4dt8n86iqk05pner7clcubdpe@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> Pigment and yes, it works well for most glossy papers.
    >
    >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.
    >
    And PS,

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

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <irksc0daed6qa7sprd3trsnqp896i3rh2f@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

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

    Yes, I know. I do plan to install a CIS at some point.

    Economics. The CIS costs almost as much as the printer did!

    Jon.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <lnksc0dkgrh69egvpp5g1mmr858g6246q0@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > The CIS colour system is available now (and attached to my Epson <g>).

    I'll still look out for the independent tests. :-)

    Jon.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
    news:memo.20040615173908.2352B@blue.compulink.co.uk...
    > In article <irksc0daed6qa7sprd3trsnqp896i3rh2f@4ax.com>,
    > hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    > > economics - the Epson carts contain 14ml of ink. The CIS bottles
    > > contain 125ml of ink. ;-)
    >
    > Yes, I know. I do plan to install a CIS at some point.
    >
    > Economics. The CIS costs almost as much as the printer did!

    Someone made their own for the 2100....

    Version 1
    http://www.eddiem.com/photo/CIS/2100p/cis2100.htm

    Version 2
    http://www.eddiem.com/photo/CIS/2100p/v2.htm

    He also hacked the chips
    http://www.eddiem.com/photo/CIS/inkchip/chip.html
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <Da3Ac.158049$8n.8044607@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be (CWatters) wrote:

    > Someone made their own for the 2100....

    Thanks, I've seen it before.

    Interesting stuff but I'm more interested in producing images to print
    than messing about with DIY projects these days. I sated my appetite for
    that kind of thing a couple of decades ago, playing around with some of
    the early 8-bit home computers.

    Jon.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:39 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <lnksc0dkgrh69egvpp5g1mmr858g6246q0@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> The CIS colour system is available now (and attached to my Epson <g>).
    >
    >I'll still look out for the independent tests. :-)
    >
    If I find any on my travels, I'll try and remember to mention them :)

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:39 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <irksc0daed6qa7sprd3trsnqp896i3rh2f@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> economics - the Epson carts contain 14ml of ink. The CIS bottles
    >> contain 125ml of ink. ;-)
    >
    >Yes, I know. I do plan to install a CIS at some point.
    >
    >Economics. The CIS costs almost as much as the printer did!
    >
    That's true. But I was looking medium term and working on volume of
    prints etc.

    BTW, if you get in contact with them and ask nicely, they'll send you
    some output from the Epson using their inks and if you're lucky, some
    free paper too to try out. :)

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <cos1d0lo7r1iriml35tntprgd5eqld9prl@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > >I'll still look out for the independent tests. :-)
    > >
    > If I find any on my travels, I'll try and remember to mention them :)

    Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

    Jon.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Dimension Peripherals