Digital BW, The Print

Hi Ernst and Brian.

I agree that for 16x20 from a 4x5 neg, you may not see the advantage of a
drum scan- in fact I alluded to just those considerations in my posts. It
really does depend on how the images will be used- I should have made that
explicit again in my comments about large format photography. On the other
hand, if you are going to go to the trouble and expense of scanning a 4x5, I
believe you should scan it at a size large enough for the largest
anticipated print- even if current plans only call for 16x20.  Even there, I
charge for drum scans no more than many people charge for Imacon or Scitex
scans, so why not get the best?

Ernst, you are certainly correct that if they are glass plate negs, he will
need a flatbed solution; but we don't know that yet. The OP asked for
"poster sized" prints, which I assumed to be large format. Lots of ways to
skin the cat!

Bill

On 7/11/07, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
>   Brian Ellis wrote:
> > "As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time,
> > effort
> > and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
> flatbed
> > scans."
> >
> > I've been photographing and exhibiting prints from 4x5 and 8x10
> negatives
> > for years using a flatbed scanner. In my experience, and that of many
> others
> > (see numerous posts on this subject at www.largeformatphotography.info),
> as
> > long as the print size doesn't exceed roughly 16x20 there's almost never
> any
> > noticeable difference between those scans and prints made from drum
> scans
> > (which I use for larger prints) unless the prints are examined with a
> loupe.
>
> The original request didn't mention wide format printing
> either as far as I know.
>
> >>My friend has inherited from several sources a vast
> collection of old maritime negs dating
> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think
> there are three sources, totalling
> something close to 4000 negs!<<
>
> This suggests a wider variety of sizes than 4x5. A variety
> of emulsions and probably lower resolution emulsions than we
> are used to today. Possibly nitrocellulose and glass image
> carriers.
>
> Looks like it needs a flexible solution which isn't one you
> will find in a drum scanner
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
>
> | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
> | www.pigment-print.com |
> | ( unvollendet ) |
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]