Enlarging Velvia 50

[markymarkrb]

I just received my first drum scan back from my GX617 camera.  The file is 1.4 GB at 300 dpi and I was honestly a little dissapointed in the results.  My goal is to make 2'x6' prints and I don't think I will be able to get that with that size of scan.  Does anyone know how big of a scan I can get from a 6x17 velvia 50 slide with a quality drum scan before the grain really starts to show?  Thanks for the help. 

[feppe]

I have a 70x70cm print of a 6x6 Provia 100 scan on my wall at 300dpi, which would equal more than 6 feet if it was a 6x17 chrome. It's essentially grainless. Don't remember which scanner the service used, but it was a dedicated film scanner, not flatbed, but not drum, either.

Either you have a very poor scan, a very discerning eye, the exposure is way off and the scanner had to work around that, or you're looking at the print from nose distance. Such a large print is not supposed to be looked at from close up unless your audience is photographers.

Waiting for the 3 people on earth who say their audience walks right up to their 8x10s blown up to barn door size.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have made at least two images that were absolutely stunning from scanned Velvia/Provia 6x7 slides. I general Velvia scanned at 3200 PPI looks absolutely awful at actual pixels but prints fine in large formats. I did spend something like two hours in Photoshop reducing grain and doing some extra sharpening but the results were stunning.

That said, it's my impression, and result of my testing that a modern full frame digital camera can match Velvia 67 for detail and would surpass it for image quality. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

This is the image I printed (converted to JPEG):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/bigimage.jpg

As said, the image above printed really well in 70x100 cm. About the best I could do from 6x7 with my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.

As a side note, I made my print using a Durst Lambda at Crimson lab in Stockholm Sweden. They used glossy paper. My A2 prints on Ilford Smooth Gloss don't even come close. I don't know if it is the glossy paper or the physical size of the image.

Best regards
Erik

I just received my first drum scan back from my GX617 camera.  The file is 1.4 GB at 300 dpi and I was honestly a little dissapointed in the results.  My goal is to make 2'x6' prints and I don't think I will be able to get that with that size of scan.  Does anyone know how big of a scan I can get from a 6x17 velvia 50 slide with a quality drum scan before the grain really starts to show?  Thanks for the help.  

[feppe]

I have made at least two images that were absolutely stunning from scanned Velvia/Provia 6x7 slides. I general Velvia scanned at 3200 PPI looks absolutely awful at actual pixels but prints fine in large formats. I did spend something like two hours in Photoshop reducing grain and doing some extra sharpening but the results were stunning.

Good point about avoiding pixel peeping a scan - it's the end result that matters, not 100% view on your screen.

Not a good point about reducing grain, though. Why would you want to do that?

[JustinFabian]

If it is a good drum scan that file size should be more than enough. My 617 transparencies (Velvia 50/100) are done on either an Imacon 848 or 949 at 3200dpi.  The resulting scans are generally 800-900mb 16bit tifs; which give me an output size of ~69.6x23.4 inches at 300dpi.  These files can easily be rez'd up to 72x24 at 300dpi.

I find the Pixelgenius Photokit Sharpener program very good at sharpening these files.  It is also best to use the marquee tool to crop out some smaller (13x19) 100% sections of the image and then print them out to test the final output sharpening.

[Jonathan Ratzlaff]

Scan would be minimum 3000dpi.  Scan resolutions are deceptive.  I always scan for the maximum input that the scanner can produce.  The reason for this is that you can always reduce the size, but why would you interpolate an image when you can get the resolution from the native scan.  In theory if you can get detail from a 35mm transparency at 4000dpi or 5400 dpi, why would you not go for the same resolution with a larger image.  While the film base is different, the resolution and Dmax is similar.

So next scan you get, go for a 4000 dpi or greater scan as it will resolve grain but also as much detail as the image has.  Who knows you may want to make it larger.  A 2'X 6' print is only a 10X enlargement and in theory you should be able to go larger than that.

[Rob C]

Scan would be minimum 3000dpi.  Scan resolutions are deceptive.  I always scan for the maximum input that the scanner can produce.  The reason for this is that you can always reduce the size, but why would you interpolate an image when you can get the resolution from the native scan.  In theory if you can get detail from a 35mm transparency at 4000dpi or 5400 dpi, why would you not go for the same resolution with a larger image.  While the film base is different, the resolution and Dmax is similar.So next scan you get, go for a 4000 dpi or greater scan as it will resolve grain but also as much detail as the image has.  Who knows you may want to make it larger.  A 2'X 6' print is only a 10X enlargement and in theory you should be able to go larger than that.

That's exactly what I used to think too, until Kirk Gittings (architectural shooter/contributor) wrote that he'd seen a coating plant at work and the film base was, in fact, identical. (At least, I think it was you, Kirk; if I'm mistaken, I apologize now!) I'd seen huge colour differences between my Nikon Velvias and the Pentax 67 ones which, we then concluded, was more to do with optics than film. I was even convinced that the films felt different to the hand, though I expect that different formats end up giving different physical impressions of stiffness and, consequently, thickness.

Rob C