Digital BW, The Print

>List,
>I am interested in comments on process and equipment.

Me too, Jamie. For economy I need to mat and frame, as well as scan 
and print, for myself. And given my small quarters, I think that 
means mattes no larger than 16 x 20 and therefore images no larger 
than about 11 x 14. But, unlike you, I do major cropping. So I too am 
interested in trying to work either with film larger than 35mm or 
with a digital camera with a sensor bigger than the 10D's.


>I currently am making pleasing prints with an Epson 3000 and 
>Piezotones, shooting with
>Canon D10 in raw. Converting to b&w 16bit. No display calibration or 
>purchased profiles.
>Using QTR. All trial and error I suppose. Lots of test strips and the best
>softproofing I can manage. Working on Mac, first gen mid tier G5 
>with Apple 21" display. I
>would like to print the images much larger! I will outsource the 
>printing. But, my files are
>not suitable right?

Yes, I think that's right, or at least conventional wisdom. But I 
believe the most important word here is your "pleasing". That is, I 
believe the question is: if you're pleased with the 10D on the 3000 
at about 16 x 20 at 300 ppi, what might be both affordable and 
pleasing in even larger formats?


>When opening the raw image I use the 'raw' preview environment in PS 
>and turn down the
>saturation completely, adjust the various image sliders till I get a 
>decent histogram. I open
>as rgb, 16 bit, 300 ppi and at 6144 x 4996 (is this interpolating 
>the image larger than its
>native res?).

Yes; the 10D's RAW resolution option is 3072 x 2048; so in your 
workflow, Photoshop is replacing about six million 10D pixels with 
about 30 million pixels Photoshop calculates as an enlarged 
approximation to the original array.


>After converting to grayscale I end up with a 48mb, 16bit image. After tweaks
>and very minor cropping I have roughly a [16 x] 20 inch image at 300ppi.
>How large can this go?

At least a little larger, I'd say, because I think 240 ppi is 
normally enough for the distances at which 16 x 20 and larger images 
are commonly viewed. In fact, at, say, 24 x 30, I think even as 
little as 180 ppi might be enough for at least some images on the 
Epson Stylus Pro 7600.


>If I want significantly larger prints am I better off shooting large 
>format (4x5) and drum
>scanning the negs? I would not have access to or a budget to rent 
>some mega-mega
>digital camera.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jamie

I doubt it. And doubt it despite the fact that I think medium-format 
film would be enough bigger and that Epson's best flat-bed scanner 
might do in place of the more expensive drum scanning. Because you'd 
have to replace your Canon lenses too, right? All that put together 
would, I think, cost at least as much as a bigger and better digital 
camera. Not that I'd do that either. What I'd consider instead is 
trying to go up to 24 x 30 on the 7600 at 240 or 180 ppi and waiting 
for Canon to replace the 6.3 MP 10D with an 8.2 MP 10D+ or something. 
I.e., just ride Canon's digital-camera development wave and, while 
waiting on their next mid-range camera, look for good chances to 
improve the lenses and tripods and flashes and filters, etc.
--
Sam, who's getting tired of waiting but still hasn't got all the 
lenses he wants