[Leica] Leica] Curious about enlargements made by LUG forum members

[scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin)]

Comments below

Peter Klein wrote:

>
> I scan at 4000 dpi on a Canon FS-4000US.  The smallest size I print 
> myself is 5x7.  I've always liked this size.  As our resident sage 
> Mark Rabiner puts it, 5x7 is both big enough and small enough at the 
> same time.  Many of my available light people pictures end up 5x7.  I 
> find it economical to cut up sheets of 11x14 Epson Matte Heavyweight 
> into four 5x7 sheets each.  That's going to be replaced by Epson 
> Enhanced Matte when I run out of the latter.  I haven't yet been 
> seduced by Hannemawhatchamacallit Photo Rag, though that might happen 
> eventually. 


I print quite a bit at 5x7 as well. Fits in a little 8x10 frame with a 
matte. "Big enough" small print.
I've been printing quite a bit of EEM, but lately have been pleased with 
printing glossy with the
Kirkland paper (available from MIS or Costco). I've also been trying out 
the allegedly more
archival (but still inexpensive) Moab Kayenta and Premier Premium Matte 
papers. These are
quite a bit brighter than EEM, so some experimentation will be in order.

>
>
> For B&W, I use an Epson 1280 with MIS Ultratone 2 Hextone inks.  For 
> color, I have an Epson R200 thatcried out unto me from the on-sale 
> rack at CompUSA. 


I've been using the little C86 and MIS EZ inks. Just love that combo. 
I've been trying to
get good results from a 2200 and the Epson UC inks with QTR, but so far, 
I've yet to
match the quality of the C86 and 4 ink set.  Perhaps UT7's or whatnot 
will be populating
my 2200 soon. Sheesh. Then I'll be buying yet another printer for color :-)

>
> I also print letter size (8.5x11) for landscapes that warrant it, and 
> for B&W's of sufficient quality.  I only occasionally print 11x14, and 
> only in B&W.  I've also used a lab for 11x14 B&W's of ISO 1600 film, 
> because the grain aliasing of my scanner makes what I can do digitally 
> at that size slightly less satisfactory than a really good wet process 
> darkroom can.  When I want larger than letter size in color, I take it 
> to a lab--probably because my color printer only goes up to letter size. 

Right on. I can relate. I really wish I could "scan through" P3200 @ EI 
1600 and get good
results digitally, but alas, twas not meant to be.  I wonder if there's 
some magical digi technique
for getting a decent scan of a grainy neg. Grain isn't bad per se, but a 
scanner can certainly
make it less than pleasing to the eye.

>
> I used to do wet darkroom, but I don't have time or space now.  
> Someday I might process my own B&W film again.  I do prefer the 
> computer to the wet darkroom.  Yes, a silver print is beautiful, but I 
> can do better prints overall on the computer.


I soup my own film in the kitchen and then scan them. Kind of a fun and 
"zen like"
aspect of the workflow for me (the souping).

Scott