Scanning

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I need
to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.

Thanks
Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I need
> to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.
>
> Thanks
> Larry
It all depends on what you want to do with the scanned image.
But without knowing that, I'd suggest scanning at 300 pixels/inch.
Your original photos do not have more resolution than 300ppi. Therefore
it is pointless to scan them at anything greater than that.
Once you have the digital info, you can resample the image to whatever
size you want.
Bob Williams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
>
> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I need
> to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.
>
> Thanks
> Larry

Have a little go. The higher the res the more you have to work with,
but only you can decide what is enough.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <lbjunk53@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A4BB78B2209larrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76:

> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I
> need to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.

Depends on what size they currently are versus what size you'll want to
print them at in the future. Otherwise, talking about dpi is meaningless.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Personally if it were me, I'd go for the higher resolution,
unless the copies were just for indexing purposes. Every time a photo
is copied, you will lose something, so with the higher res you'll lose
less.
Eric

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I need
> to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.
>
> Thanks
> Larry

How big are the pictures? If and when you print them, you'll want to
print at about 200 or 300 pixels per inch. You need to scan them at at
least 40% higher. So you need to scan at least 420 ppi if you do not
want to enlarge them. If they are small prints, you may want to enlarge
them when you print, so you need to increase the value accordingly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think if you'll be printing them, do a few test prints (of the color,
of the b&w). I have 2 scanners and I set each to different settings to
do the same job, so I think scanners vary. There are other adjustments
on scanners besides pixel. My Umax does very well when set to the
brightness level just above the default one (though I wouldn't have
thought so); that particular scanner has many settings -- go by the
darkroom decree, "minimize variables" and try out each setting one at a
time, print a photo and see what looks best. For such a large project,
you might as well get it right the first time. Just my opinion...

 

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bluezfolk" <bluezfolk@aol.com> wrote in news:1122900908.982235.60630
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Personally if it were me, I'd go for the higher resolution,
> unless the copies were just for indexing purposes. Every time a photo
> is copied, you will lose something, so with the higher res you'll lose
> less.
> Eric
>

I have started using the 300 dpi. Takes minimally longer to scan. My plan
is to compile a picture dvd and print in at least 8x10 format for family.

Thanks for all the input

Larry

 

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in
news:08qHe.4$lj4.3235@news.uswest.net:

> Larry wrote:
>> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
>> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I
>> need to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and
>> colour.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Larry
>
> How big are the pictures? If and when you print them, you'll want to
> print at about 200 or 300 pixels per inch. You need to scan them at
> at least 40% higher. So you need to scan at least 420 ppi if you do
> not want to enlarge them. If they are small prints, you may want to
> enlarge them when you print, so you need to increase the value
> accordingly.
>

Thanks Don - good info

Larry

 

[user]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:50:16 GMT, Larry <lbjunk53@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"bluezfolk" <bluezfolk@aol.com> wrote in news:1122900908.982235.60630
>@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Personally if it were me, I'd go for the higher resolution,
>> unless the copies were just for indexing purposes. Every time a photo
>> is copied, you will lose something, so with the higher res you'll lose
>> less.
>> Eric
>

Thats just a misunderstanding.

You can COPY a jpg file a million times, and you won't lose a bit of info.

The only way loss will occur is;
If you decode the file ( use a pic-editing program. )
then RE-ENCODE the picture data.

example;
Display file
Crop, change brightness etc.
<Save> or <Save As>

<rj>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <lbjunk53@hotmail.com> writes:

> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do I need
> to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and colour.

Are you scanning film (negatives or slides) or prints?

150 or 300 are decent values for prints (anything over 300 is almost
certainly a waste of time, unless you have exceptionally fine glossy
prints). They're grotesquely inadequate for film.

What do you plan to *do* with these scans? Are they intended to be
final archival scans, or do you just need them for a web site, or is
it some intermediate plan?

The two basic approaches to scanning are "get every bit of information
I can out of the picture" and "get the amount of information I need to
do X".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Larry <lbjunk53@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I am about to undertake the scanning of photos going back to the
>> early/middle 50s. The default resolution is 150. Is that okay or do
>> I need to increase it to 300 or more. The photos will be b/w and
>> colour.
>
> Are you scanning film (negatives or slides) or prints?
>
> 150 or 300 are decent values for prints (anything over 300 is almost
> certainly a waste of time, unless you have exceptionally fine glossy
> prints). They're grotesquely inadequate for film.
>
> What do you plan to *do* with these scans? Are they intended to be
> final archival scans, or do you just need them for a web site, or is
> it some intermediate plan?
>
> The two basic approaches to scanning are "get every bit of
> information
> I can out of the picture" and "get the amount of information I need
> to
> do X".

My scans of printed matter are usually at 300 ppi, 35mm slides and
negatives at an equipment-limited 2400.

Sometimes I will scan a small print at 600 or 1200. My underlying
figuring is that every little bit of leeway I give myself for my
ham-handed Photo Shop manipulations will be beneficial (better-hidden
defects) at final size.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:

> Sometimes I will scan a small print at 600 or 1200. My underlying
> figuring is that every little bit of leeway I give myself for my
> ham-handed Photo Shop manipulations will be beneficial (better-hidden
> defects) at final size.

Well, non-harmful, anyway. So no big reason not to.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down