Negative scanner for 30x40 prints

i have been looking at the canon 9000f for scanning some film, 6x4.5. i know this scanner is good but it probably will not be good enough to make a 30x40 print of these images (high quality). have any of you had an experience with higher end scanners that will have enough resolving power to produce 30x40 prints from a 645 neg?

I would use the negative to make the print. Scanning my medium format negatives and transparencies I bought a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED. It doesn't come cheap but it is one excellent unit for handling multiple film formats. I've tried a couple of different flat bed scanners and they do reasonable jobs but if you are wanting to have something that can print as big as you specified you want to have something that will give you top quality. If you only have a few negatives I would send them out to one of the many places that do custom scans.

some of those coolscans go for a premium, but thats OK if they really do deliver which i have read some reviews and they all seem to praise these highly.

everyone i have asked has told me that a 30x40 traditional print from a 645 negative is pushing the film too much beyond acceptable fine art quality. This is the only reason i am considering going to the next level in terms of a scanner. sending things out to a shop is ok but i am one of those people who like to do everything myself and it's the only way i know. i still do my own oil changes even though some shops charge less than the price of the oil itself lol.

do you think a 645 will be ok at 30x40 for normal gallery viewing distances? my only problem is that i have noticed many people "pixel peep" even at galleries coming in for very focused viewings and not the whole picture, will the grain be offensive at that size?

what is the largest print you have made using the coolscan?

I don't know if this will help but I have the coolscan 5000 and have done 24x36 from 35mm and have been very pleased with the results.

that actually does since its roughly only one step up in print sizes a 645 neg should be able to in theory with your same variables print well up to 30x40.

If you don't mind me asking whom do you use for actually printing these images?

oceanbeast wrote in post #15906166
that actually does since its roughly only one step up in print sizes a 645 neg should be able to in theory with your same variables print well up to 30x40.

If you don't mind me asking whom do you use for actually printing these images?

I used a Local man that works from his home. He prints,Matt's and frames

I'm surprised you think that digitising the image will allow you to make a better print than using traditional methods. After all, it's only around 17× magnification. A good quality negative should allow that, especially if hand printed by someone who knows what they are doing. The only reason I would consider going to digital would be if they required extensive Photoshop manipulation to fix problems with them.

Alan

i am not sure how accurate that estimation is, I don't have the necessary experience to refute your statement but I have been told by people who have done it that digitizing the images would allow for even greater size and better quality prints at those sizes. also my lab would not allow me to print to that size we are stuck to 20"x24"

I use the Canon 8800F. I can print very large from 35mm negs and slides. My results are spectacular. Whether or not you can print what you have in mind depends more on the original image quality rather than the scanner.

If you're scanning 4.5 x 6 inch negatives and they are good quality to start with then I'm thinking you could print them large enough to cover the side of a city bus.

I got a Canon 9000F Mk II today and scanned some slides I took in 1967. The results aren't very sharp. It could be a) the lenses I had at the time were cheap and not very sharp, b) some of the low light shots suffer from image shake, or c) a flatbed scanner cannot hold mounted slides precisely enough to insure accurate focus by the scanner.

Although the results are not sharp when pixel-peeping, they may be good enough when viewed full screen on my monitor.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #15913168
I got a Canon 9000F Mk II today and scanned some slides I took in 1967. The results aren't very sharp. It could be a) the lenses I had at the time were cheap and not very sharp, b) some of the low light shots suffer from image shake, or c) a flatbed scanner cannot hold mounted slides precisely enough to insure accurate focus by the scanner.

Although the results are not sharp when pixel-peeping, they may be good enough when viewed full screen on my monitor.

It is not this.

It may well be your first suggestion. Or a combination of not so great glass and not so steady shooting.

In my 35mm film shooting days, I was very inexperienced as to shooting techniques and as a result my "best" pics could only be printed at 11x17 (or so). In other words, it's not the scanner, although there are a range of scanners out there as far as resolution and other IQ matters, but for "pixel-peeping" (100% viewing), I wouldn't bother when talking about lower-quality glass and shooting skills.

Another interesting thing: once I had sent a negative out to a lab to get one of those 11x prints. the print came back to my local shop and the guy looked admiringly at it and said "Wow, what a great pic and print! It's too bad that you shot it at ISO 200 instead of a lower ISO!"

Heh, he showed me how the fine detail was starting to "run" and, well, my mind got to work. However, that was pushing the end of my film-shooting days. In fact, my "good" camera died, and I ended up just jumping around with those little P&S disposables until I got my first digital in my hands, and I haven't looked back!

oceanbeast wrote in post #15905353
everyone i have asked has told me that a 30x40 traditional print from a 645 negative is pushing the film too much beyond acceptable fine art quality.

I'm assuming 30x40 inches?
That would be more of a limitation of the film then of the reproduction. Either digital or "traditional".
And also be a matter of opinion. Not one I'd necessarily agree on (depending on film and subject, obviously)