Preserved Topic: Pre Press Gurus?

A while back, I made this painting/collage (I no longer own the original)
which was approx. 20"x35"
All I have left is this photo, a friend took and scanned to disk for me.
My question: Is there anyway I can give this file to a Service
Bureau, and have them output it, anywhere near to the original size?


I have the original photo but no scanner---
Would it have to be re-scanned at a higher resolution
in order to get better results?

Any help greatly appreciated.

would be nice to give a link I guess
http://members.home.net/bbtaylor/images/dreams.html





[This message has been edited by kromaZ (edited 22-12-2000).]

I just went into a photo shop today to ask about that. I bought a digital camera and wanted to know about my options for hard prints. They do have machines that will print the photos out. However, unless the resolution on your picture is very high you wouldn't have much luck with a print as big as 20" x 35".

if you could get the photo... you should be able to scan it in at an extremely high resolution then have a giclee (gee-clay) print done.

call a few print places in town and ask if they can make giclee prints. they're also referred to as an "iris printer" sometimes because that's the original company that made the format for huge drum-printing..

shit i gotta go and can't explain more, but that should be enough.

cheers.mikey.milker

That really depend on the original, Is it a 35mm and what speed film. When we scan drum scans of 35mm photography for print work, We generally limit enlargments to ruffly 11" X 17 " at 300dpi. These are proofed on a Kodak Approval at 150lpi in most cases the grain is very noticeable. However these are often fashion shots. Shot on 200 speed film many times pushed processed. A nice slide using a slower speed film, shot in a studio, and processed correctly would do better.

Most of the larger stuff i've worked on is shot on 4x5 transparencys, I have gone as large as 23 x 35 with good results.

It realy depends on the resoulution of your target printer. I would call around, most service providers have segested file sizes and advice. You don't want to supply more then the output device can handle. If you do you will start to get charged additional rip fees.

You might look for what is called a Lightjet, It is a photographic output device, it's continuous tone and should give you better result. You might just want to have the shot enlarged photographicly however unless you need to retouch (Many times this is cheaper, greater color range as well).

Iris prints are very nice as well and allow for more paper types, you might have good luck choosing a textured or high rag content paper that will cause the grain to be less noticeable. One thing you may run into with pigment based proof devices is the color range will be more limited. Your painting appears to have nice bring colors. They will be sightly muted by the CYMK process used by the IRIS proofer.

I would also look in to display plotters, many placed have the newer Epson large format plotter, this would give you ruffly poster quality at less cost.

What ever you decide I would pay extra and have a 8x10 done prior to sending spending money on a larger proof.

The most improtant thing, I ask your printer or output service? If they can't or don't help they are not worth using.

This is the single most effective thing you can do.

jstuartj

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 22-12-2000).]

uhm yeah, basically what jstuartj said ever so much more eleoquently (and usefully) than myself.

thanks a lot, good information there.

cheers.mikey.milker

yup, 35mm is shitty quality. to get a good quality print at the same size you'd need to shoot with 120 or so or scan the sucker...giclee is you best bet otherwise with the photo...it'll look like shit up close though...my large format printing consists of shooting 4x5 transparencies, 120 kodak chromes, or other large format transparencies, scanning at between 1440 and 14000 dpi and printing up to 44 inches wide by inifinitely long...the entire process results in extremely high quality results because the entire process is high quality...you can't start low and work your way up then expect a good result....this is an all digital process though...the chains only as strong as the weakest link....i can't imagine what your corner film processor would do...



www.netmosis.com - we're on the leading edge of a false reality...

Thank you all for your very enlightening replies.
There seems to be alot more to consider to this process
than I imagined.
I just might have to live with a smaller output size
in order to get the quality I want.

One other thing...would there be any advantage, if I was to
shoot the 35mm snapshot with 4x5 film, output from that,
or would this be stepping on it too much?....(3rd generation)

Again thanks all. I really appreciate your help

No advantage, all disadvantage. I second the suggestion that, as long as you already have it on film, make conventional color prints. The scan you already have will be insufficient for digital output, and a C print from a neg (you DO have the neg, right?) will be cheaper and better. Unless you need to retouch, which isn't likely it appears.

If you don't have the neg but only the print, then you're in a bit of a bind. Scans from minilab quality prints will look about as wretched as a copy neg from the same print.

BTW - a 20x35 output either conventionally or digitally is gonna be a pile o' cash. Why don't you just reposses the original? Or paint it again


(Nice image. Forgot to say that up front!)