Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

200DPI LightJet Print

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 20, 2005 4:51:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and printed by
my local pro lab.

I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail that I
believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is sharp and
looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the print was $35
for a total of $80.

I asked for more information. What I assumed was a drum scan wasn't.
They use a $39,000 Scitex flatbed scanner. The lab owner says it
outperformed their drum scanner so they got rid of it.

And the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at 200dpi).
I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.

Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
continuous-tone LightJet print?

Thanks

More about : 200dpi lightjet print

Anonymous
April 20, 2005 4:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:51:23 GMT, pgg
<papaNO_SP_AMgordygrapes@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and printed by
>my local pro lab.
>
>I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
>print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail that I
>believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is sharp and
>looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the print was $35
>for a total of $80.
>
>I asked for more information. What I assumed was a drum scan wasn't.
>They use a $39,000 Scitex flatbed scanner. The lab owner says it
>outperformed their drum scanner so they got rid of it.


They're not necessarily wrong about that.
The Creo Scitex flatbeds (eg. Eversmart Pro)
are on par with most drum scanners in terms
of resolution. Even on eBay, these things
go for big bucks.


>And the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at 200dpi).
>I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.
>
>Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
>continuous-tone LightJet print?


I've compared LightJet at 305 dpi vs. Durst Epsilon
at 254 dpi, and there's not much difference.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
April 20, 2005 4:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

pgg wrote:

> I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and printed by
> my local pro lab.
>
> I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
> print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail that I
> believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is sharp and
> looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the print was $35
> for a total of $80.
>

Get a pro cibachrome done and compare.. 200DPI doesn't sound like enough to
me. I'd never send a print at that rez in for printing.

--

Stacey
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 20, 2005 5:24:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

> Get a pro cibachrome done and compare.. 200DPI doesn't sound like enough to
> me. I'd never send a print at that rez in for printing.

I'll do something different next time. I'm not gonna spend another $80 on
the same image!

All I have for comparison is my own B&W prints done with my enlarger. I
examine the print 3 inches away and still see fine detail.

I thought about buying the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper and chemicals to
do it myself but I figured I would burn expensive paper and chemicals
while going through the learning process. And I've read how wonderful the
digital LightJet route to color printing supposedly is.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 7:42:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Recently, pgg <papaNO_SP_AMgordygrapes@yahoo.com> posted:

> I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and
> printed by my local pro lab.
>
> I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
> print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail
> that I believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is
> sharp and looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the
> print was $35 for a total of $80.
>
> I asked for more information. What I assumed was a drum scan wasn't.
> They use a $39,000 Scitex flatbed scanner. The lab owner says it
> outperformed their drum scanner so they got rid of it.
>
> And the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at
> 200dpi). I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.
>
> Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
> continuous-tone LightJet print?
>
All things being equal, a 300 ppi image could look a lot better than a 200
ppi image. A lot depends on the image. From what you've said, your image
may be capable of better results if you use a higher resolution.

As for the Scitex vs. drum scan, I don't see that as the first place that
improvements can be made. The Lightjet is capable of some really good
output, but unless you're really lucky or not very picky, it won't be from
a point-and-shoot approach. I usually get a set of smaller test prints
made, sometimes using a critical portion of the image enlarged to the
final size. Then I tweak the image to adjust for contrast range and color
balance, and spring for the enlargement only when I get results that I
think are good.

The way I look at it, spending $20 on test prints is a lot cheaper than
scrapping final enlargements.

Regards,

Neil
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"PGG" <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.20.01.25.07.231000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com...
>
> > Get a pro cibachrome done and compare.. 200DPI doesn't sound like enough
to
> > me. I'd never send a print at that rez in for printing.
>
> I'll do something different next time. I'm not gonna spend another $80 on
> the same image!
>
> All I have for comparison is my own B&W prints done with my enlarger. I
> examine the print 3 inches away and still see fine detail.
>
> I thought about buying the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper and chemicals to
> do it myself but I figured I would burn expensive paper and chemicals
> while going through the learning process. And I've read how wonderful the
> digital LightJet route to color printing supposedly is.
>
I don't shoot transparency, so I haven't looked at the costs of Cibachrome
materials, but I do routinely make 16x20 RA-4 prints from 6x7 negs. The cost
of a sheet of 16x20 paper is about $1.00USD, the chemistry is about $0.12
for processing (roller transport processor, chemicals purchased in 25 gallon
quantity). For one 16x20, I usually use 1.5 or 1.75 sheets of paper (2 or 3
quarter sheet test prints).

As for the quality: in your case, the quality was determined by the original
transparency, the scanner, the image processing software, and the printer.
In my case, the neg and the enlarger lens determines the quality. If you've
already got the enlarger and the darkroom, get the materials and try it out.
Color printing is _not_ difficult and it is _not_ expensive.

Ken Hart
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"PGG" <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Get a pro cibachrome done and compare.. 200DPI doesn't sound like enough
to
> > me. I'd never send a print at that rez in for printing.
>
> I'll do something different next time. I'm not gonna spend another $80 on
> the same image!

Surprisingly, I agree with Stacey that 200 dpi is inadequate<g>: my
experience is that 200 dpi prints look good at 18" but not at 10". They're
not grain-sniffable. And that's from dSLR images (which are sharper than
most scans).

> All I have for comparison is my own B&W prints done with my enlarger. I
> examine the print 3 inches away and still see fine detail.

Ah, a fellow grain sniffer! 6x7 to 16x20 is less than an 8x enlargement, so
16x20s should look pretty nice from 6x7 assuming a sharp slide/negative to
start with.

> I thought about buying the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper and chemicals to
> do it myself but I figured I would burn expensive paper and chemicals
> while going through the learning process. And I've read how wonderful the
> digital LightJet route to color printing supposedly is.

If your lab is printing 6x7 at 16x20 at 200 dpi, that's only about a 1500
dpi scan. A sharp slide, scanned at 4000 dpi and downsampled to 2400 dpi can
look very nice on screen or at 300 dpi. I suspect that what's going on is
that your lab is used to looking at 35mm printed at 16x20, and just doesn't
get it how good medium format should look.

The bad news is that it looks to me that if you want to get most of what's
on your film into a scan, you need to buy a Nikon 8000 or 9000 and scan them
yourself. My experience is that the time and care and effort required to get
a good scan is such that there's no way it can ever be a commercially viable
operation.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
April 20, 2005 2:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 44bvd$23c$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> The bad news is that it looks to me that if you want to get most of what's
> on your film into a scan, you need to buy a Nikon 8000 or 9000 and scan
> them
> yourself. My experience is that the time and care and effort required to
> get
> a good scan is such that there's no way it can ever be a commercially
> viable
> operation.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>

A great misfortune is the interaction of quality and money you have implied
to this sad tale.
I have a Epson flatbed, 'film' scanner which is God awful on 35mm film but
more than passable on 120 roll film and very, very nice on 4"x5" film.

A 4x5 transparency scanned on this device and printed on a HP designjet at
24" wide looks better than what I once tried to obtain via a commercial drum
scan and Lightjet print.

Saddly, many commercial labs have not kept pace with the developments in
scanners and inkjet printers. The Epson cost me under $300 US and the
printer under $2k US. maybe too much for home users but HP are about to
release a new printer to take on the Epson 4000 which is tipped to be at
home use price. Maybe this gets affordable enough to justify, given that the
prints cost only a few bucks and the quality as good as or better than a
lightjet?

Douglas
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> The bad news is that it looks to me that if you want to get most
> of what's on your film into a scan, you need to buy a Nikon 8000
> or 9000 and scan them yourself. My experience is that the time and
> care and effort required to get a good scan is such that there's
> no way it can ever be a commercially viable operation.

That's good advice, but to save money you could buy one of the
newer flatbed scanners with film attachment. They are starting to
approach the quality of the Nikon 8000 or 9000, at a much lower
price point.

I'm baffled because AFAIK the Lightjet is incapable of printing
at 200 dpi. Maybe it was a Durst Lambda printer? They can print
at either 200 or 400 dpi. Maybe the scan was upsampled.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <plm9e.17361$5F3.652@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>Saddly, many commercial labs have not kept pace with the developments in
>scanners and inkjet printers. The Epson cost me under $300 US and the
>printer under $2k US. maybe too much for home users but HP are about to
>release a new printer to take on the Epson 4000 which is tipped to be at
>home use price. Maybe this gets affordable enough to justify, given that the
>prints cost only a few bucks and the quality as good as or better than a
>lightjet?

You may want to separate scanning from printing. First get a good scan and
then find a suitable place (or way) to print the scan.

A LS-9000 costs a lot more than $300, and you do want at least something like
a LS-8000 to extract enough details from a MF frame.

The best deal would be to find a place with a LS-9000 and get a raw 16-bit/ch
scan. That costs the least amount of time for the scanner operator and
allows you to create a good digital image afterwards.

A 20x30 inch digital print on RA-4 paper costs me 8 euro (but the resolution
is 200 ppi). I doubt that any kind of inktjet print can be this cheap.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:56:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Hi,
The CREO scanner is an excellent piece of equipment IF the scan is done
professionally. Most people think that they can just glue a slide on a
scanner, press -auto- and the scan is perfect - no way!
But assuming that the scan was fine, someone who prints 16x20 at 200dpi
should go back to school. LightJets are quite good but the minimum
resolution you should get that scan printed is 300, better 360dpi on a
really good printer, not necessarily a LightJet. I am usually not a fan
of inkjet printers but I would go to a professional provider for prints
and get it redone.
Another topic of course is the question: Is your 6x7 transparency in
focus, I mean, really in focus, 100% sharp? One lesson which most medium
format non-professionals have to learn is the fact that most of their
images are not really sharp. If you scan the slide at max optical
resolution then you need to see the smallest details at the same level
of sharpness as you can see the grain of the film. Check it - you might
be surprised!
Kind regards
George Nyman



pgg wrote:
> I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and printed by
> my local pro lab.
>
> I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
> print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail that I
> believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is sharp and
> looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the print was $35
> for a total of $80.
>
> I asked for more information. What I assumed was a drum scan wasn't.
> They use a $39,000 Scitex flatbed scanner. The lab owner says it
> outperformed their drum scanner so they got rid of it.
>
> And the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at 200dpi).
> I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.
>
> Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
> continuous-tone LightJet print?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:58:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>ppg writes ...
>
>... the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at
200dpi).
>I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.

I can help you with this part, I took a three day advanced printing lab
a couple years back with one of the digital gurus at one of the best
labs and we printed on a LightJet 5000 ... the 5000 has a native
resolution of 12 lines/mm (res 12) which calculates out to 304.8 ppi.
That's what it wants to see ... you can feed it res 8 files (203.2 ppi)
and it will interpolate these to res 12. We did all our files at res
12 for the class before printing.

Newer Lightjet models (I don't remember the number, maybe 540 or
something? ... too lazy to look it up) got away from the metric numbers
and now claim they want 300 ppi for input files and can rez up 200 ppi
files with minimal loss. The Chromira, which is similar but about
$40,000 instead of $130,000, is also a 300/200 ppi machine.

So my guess is that he has a newer LightJet ... you can check the
Symbolic Sciences site and see what the model of the newer printer is
and ask the guy at the lab which model he has. But I think you're OK
here.

>Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
>continuous-tone LightJet print?

As mentioned we went with 304.8 ppi (not dpi) when we printed on the
LightJet but we were told by the guy running the show that the LJ did a
great job of interpolating files from res 8 to res 12 and that "you
can't see the difference". Though I noted that he personally always
went 304.8 ppi himself :)  But he had a drum scanner and shot medium
format so had no problems generating large files.

I've never done a test of this, ie, printed the same file at two
different resolutions just to check, but that's what I was told. I
think that Bill Nordstrom at Laser Light labs (not where I took my
class), who now has a Chromira, has stated very strongly that he will
scan your files for printing at 200 ppi (relying on interpolation) or,
if you insist will scan at 300 ppi but charge more for the larger scan,
and Bill feels there is absolutely no difference in print quality
between interpolated 200 ppi and native 300 ppi on his Chromira. So I
guess you'll have to try it yourself and see.

Bill
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> The bad news is that it looks to me that if you want to get most of
> what's on your film into a scan, you need to buy a Nikon 8000 or
> 9000 and scan them yourself.

You don't need to buy one because you can rent one instead. Some
places do cheap weekend rental, and you can get quite a few scans done
in a weekend.

Andrew.
April 20, 2005 8:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"pgg" <papaNO_SP_AMgordygrapes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.20.00.51.35.46000@yahoo.com...
>I decided to get a 6x7 transparency professionally scanned and printed by
> my local pro lab.
>
> I just got my 16x20 print back. It looks nice, but when examining the
> print from 6-10 inches, I wasn't exactly blown away by the detail that I
> believe exists in the Fuji Velvia transparency. The print is sharp and
> looks great from a few feet away. The scan was $45 and the print was $35
> for a total of $80.
>
> I asked for more information. What I assumed was a drum scan wasn't.
> They use a $39,000 Scitex flatbed scanner. The lab owner says it
> outperformed their drum scanner so they got rid of it.
>
> And the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at 200dpi).
> I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.
>
> Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
> continuous-tone LightJet print?
>
> Thanks
>
It is all very well discussing the hardware the lab uses, and at what
resolution.

The real point seems to be that this particular lab has not produced the
quality of work you want.

Another lab using exactly the same equipment, could produce superb results.
It is all about how much attention they pay to the job in hand. Are they
churning the stuff through and don't care if it is sub standard?

Have a look around the local Professional Photographers until you find some
large Prints on show, which are up to the standard you want, and ask the
authors where they were done. If you find they are all using that lab, and
are pleased with the quality, then go back to the lab and complain. Your
work must have been done on a bad day, and a good lab will happily re-do
substandard work.

If you find that they are all using someplace else, then you have found the
answer.

If you cannot find any Prints up to your standard, then you are going to
have to learn how to do it for yourself.

Roy G
April 20, 2005 9:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>
> I'm baffled because AFAIK the Lightjet is incapable of printing
> at 200 dpi. Maybe it was a Durst Lambda printer? They can print
> at either 200 or 400 dpi. Maybe the scan was upsampled.

I believe they are scanning at 200dpi to save time. Yes, I believe the
LightJet will interpolate any input to 305dpi.

I asked the lab why they don't print at 300dpi for 16x20 and larger. He
answered "When we tested the Lightjet, we found almost no visual
difference between 200 and 300 dpi on prints larger than 12x18".

Can anybody point me to a solid source that would refute this claim?
April 20, 2005 9:04:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>
> I'm baffled because AFAIK the Lightjet is incapable of printing
> at 200 dpi. Maybe it was a Durst Lambda printer? They can print
> at either 200 or 400 dpi. Maybe the scan was upsampled.

He also said "A majority of labs run files at 200 dpi or below"

The thing is, I really like these people otherwise and the lab is a few
blocks from my home so it is damn convenient!!
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Recently, pgg <papaNO_SP_AMgordygrapes@yahoo.com> posted:

>> I'm baffled because AFAIK the Lightjet is incapable of printing
>> at 200 dpi. Maybe it was a Durst Lambda printer? They can print
>> at either 200 or 400 dpi. Maybe the scan was upsampled.
>
> I believe they are scanning at 200dpi to save time. Yes, I believe
> the LightJet will interpolate any input to 305dpi.
>
> I asked the lab why they don't print at 300dpi for 16x20 and larger.
> He answered "When we tested the Lightjet, we found almost no visual
> difference between 200 and 300 dpi on prints larger than 12x18".
>
> Can anybody point me to a solid source that would refute this claim?
>
You don't need a "cite" to understand that 300 ppi = 90000 pixels while
200 ppi = 40000 pixels in a 1" square. Whether or not your image can
benefit from gaining over 2x the resolution only you can say. If the
reason that you don't like the results that you got is because the print
looks soft to you, then you already answered part of that question.

Best regards,

Neil
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:25:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

pgg wrote:

>>I'm baffled because AFAIK the Lightjet is incapable of printing
>>at 200 dpi. Maybe it was a Durst Lambda printer? They can print
>>at either 200 or 400 dpi. Maybe the scan was upsampled.
>
>
> I believe they are scanning at 200dpi to save time. Yes, I believe the
> LightJet will interpolate any input to 305dpi.
>
> I asked the lab why they don't print at 300dpi for 16x20 and larger. He
> answered "When we tested the Lightjet, we found almost no visual
> difference between 200 and 300 dpi on prints larger than 12x18".
>
> Can anybody point me to a solid source that would refute this claim?
>
>
See:
http://www.cymbolic.com/products/lightjet5000.html

The different models and modes have 200 dpi, 305 dpi, and 406 dpi.
The reason for 200 dpi is speed of printing, not sharpness.

I do 4x5s drum scanned and epson 4870 scanned (at home)
and do big enlargements, up to 4 x 5 feet, on Fuji Crystal
Archive paper on Lightjets. I've only done 305 and 406 dpi.
Both are stunningly sharp.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com
April 21, 2005 2:52:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>>... the LightJet print was done at 200dpi (or it was scanned at
> 200dpi).
>>I believe the native resolution of all LightJets is 305dpi.
>
> I can help you with this part, I took a three day advanced printing lab
> a couple years back with one of the digital gurus at one of the best
> labs and we printed on a LightJet 5000 ... the 5000 has a native
> resolution of 12 lines/mm (res 12) which calculates out to 304.8 ppi.
> That's what it wants to see ... you can feed it res 8 files (203.2 ppi)
> and it will interpolate these to res 12. We did all our files at res
> 12 for the class before printing.
>
> Newer Lightjet models (I don't remember the number, maybe 540 or
> something? ... too lazy to look it up) got away from the metric numbers
> and now claim they want 300 ppi for input files and can rez up 200 ppi
> files with minimal loss. The Chromira, which is similar but about
> $40,000 instead of $130,000, is also a 300/200 ppi machine.
>
> So my guess is that he has a newer LightJet ... you can check the
> Symbolic Sciences site and see what the model of the newer printer is
> and ask the guy at the lab which model he has. But I think you're OK
> here.
>
>>Does anybody have an idea how much better 300dpi looks for a
>>continuous-tone LightJet print?
>
> As mentioned we went with 304.8 ppi (not dpi) when we printed on the
> LightJet but we were told by the guy running the show that the LJ did a
> great job of interpolating files from res 8 to res 12 and that "you
> can't see the difference". Though I noted that he personally always
> went 304.8 ppi himself :)  But he had a drum scanner and shot medium
> format so had no problems generating large files.
>
> I've never done a test of this, ie, printed the same file at two
> different resolutions just to check, but that's what I was told. I
> think that Bill Nordstrom at Laser Light labs (not where I took my
> class), who now has a Chromira, has stated very strongly that he will
> scan your files for printing at 200 ppi (relying on interpolation) or,
> if you insist will scan at 300 ppi but charge more for the larger scan,
> and Bill feels there is absolutely no difference in print quality
> between interpolated 200 ppi and native 300 ppi on his Chromira. So I
> guess you'll have to try it yourself and see.


Thanks Bill. Great post.

What I really need to do is purchase a 8x loupe and examine the
transparency closely to ensure I nailed the focus.
April 21, 2005 5:38:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

> I do 4x5s drum scanned and epson 4870 scanned (at home)
> and do big enlargements, up to 4 x 5 feet, on Fuji Crystal
> Archive paper on Lightjets. I've only done 305 and 406 dpi.
> Both are stunningly sharp.
>

Just for curiousity, how does the 4870 do? With 4x5s and LightJet output,
it is comparable to the drum scans?
April 21, 2005 8:23:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

> As for the quality: in your case, the quality was determined by the original
> transparency, the scanner, the image processing software, and the printer.
> In my case, the neg and the enlarger lens determines the quality. If you've
> already got the enlarger and the darkroom, get the materials and try it out.
> Color printing is _not_ difficult and it is _not_ expensive.

I've done color printing with the Tetenal Mono RA-4 chemicals. So far
I've limited myself to 35mm and 8x10 prints, and I agree, it is not
difficult. These room temperature chemicals run about 30 cents each 8x10
print. More expensive, but I don't need to worry about temperature
control.

Now the Ilfochrome chemicals are in another league pricewise. I figured
it would cost me $80 to make about 10-12 11x14 prints....assuming little
learning curve. To make a 16x20 print, I'd have to purchase a 50-sheet
pack of paper for $150, and then the P30 chemicals (for home use) are
expensive and don't give you much mileage nor shelf life. Pretty much a
one-shot deal.

So I'm sort of torn on how I want to shoot color. I love laying out
Velvia transparencies on the light-table. I don't get the same
satisfaction when I got a roll of color negatives back...yet I can print
my own negatives.

I think I'll end up getting one of those Epson flatbeds to hopefully
address my color printing needs. Scan at home, send files to some place
like www.ezprints.com for LightJet output.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 11:43:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

The newer model LightJets that run at 200 ppi or 300 ppi (instead of
304.8 ppi) are described here, models 500XL and 430 ...

http://www.cymbolic.com/lightjet430.html
http://www.cymbolic.com/lightjet500XL.html

>From the lab's point of view, 200 ppi is much better because the scan
times are shorter, the digital work goes faster because the files are
less than half the size of 300 ppi files, and storage is cheaper.

Bill
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 12:44:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:426685d0@news.meer.net...
> In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > The bad news is that it looks to me that if you want to get most
> > of what's on your film into a scan, you need to buy a Nikon 8000
> > or 9000 and scan them yourself. My experience is that the time and
> > care and effort required to get a good scan is such that there's
> > no way it can ever be a commercially viable operation.
>
> That's good advice, but to save money you could buy one of the
> newer flatbed scanners with film attachment. They are starting to
> approach the quality of the Nikon 8000 or 9000, at a much lower
> price point.

Again, here's what I'm seeing with the Epson 4870 vs. the Nikon 8000.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original

Here's the Nikon upsampled to match the Epson's 4800 dpi.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

pgg wrote:

>>I do 4x5s drum scanned and epson 4870 scanned (at home)
>>and do big enlargements, up to 4 x 5 feet, on Fuji Crystal
>>Archive paper on Lightjets. I've only done 305 and 406 dpi.
>>Both are stunningly sharp.
>>
>
>
> Just for curiousity, how does the 4870 do? With 4x5s and LightJet output,
> it is comparable to the drum scans?

No, it's not comparable to drum scans in terms of resolution,
but it is really darn close. And with $100/drum scan for 4x5,
I can do much more than I can afford with drum scans.

I do 16-bits/channel and 3200 dpi, and it is pretty
close to drum scans. But at that resolution it can't
do the 4x5 in one pass (line length limitation of 65 kbytes).
So I do left and right halves and put them together
in photoshop.

There is a new epson 4990 that is supposedly better than
the 4870. I'm looking for experienced users to see
if I can do a 4x5 at 3200 ppi in a single scan,
or perhaps even a 4800 ppi scan in a single frame.
That would save me a lot of time. I'll have a
used 4870 for sale then.

Roger
!