Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

another scanning question
Old 04-23-2005   #1
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
another scanning question

i think this is basic but i don't know the answer. up untill now my scanning was for the web but, if i want to scan with printing in mind, what size do i need to save the scan at?

for the rff gallery i usually save at about (long side) 800 pixels x ? so that it fits the screen but for a print do i need to save at a particular size so that it translates to a certain print size.

for example, for an 8x10 print is there a certain size to save at?

make sense, do i?

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #2
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,162
Hi Joe,

I'm not all that digital photo savy either, but with digital printing in mind, wouldn't you save at the max resolution your scanner is capable of?
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #3
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Joe,

Scanning size is somewhat disconnected from printing size. Printing size is a function of dots-per-inch on the printer, not on the screen. Very confusing stuff. Take a look at this:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/m42home.htm

In general, though - I scan at 3200 dpi and that eqates to 4300 x 4600 or something like that - my 35mm scans come out at about 22 to 28 megabytes each. That would let me print very nicely at well past 8x10, and I never want to print larger than that, so I'm good. Hope this helps - I'm a bit fuzzy on the whole thing myself.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #4
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
i'm not talking about resolution but the actual size of the image.
like for the book, we needed to save the image at something like 2100 x ?, i think.

as to resolution, i have read conflicting reports about what to save the image at.
for now i am saving at the second highest resolution that my scanner is capable of and at 1000 pix on the longest side.

i have a buddy with a good printer and he will print off some pics for me.

i'm getting curious about hard copies and printers now.

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100

Last edited by back alley : 04-23-2005 at 19:54.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #5
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Joe,

Sorry, that's where my knowledge just pooped out. I'm in the dark past that. I just save at max res on my scans and upload jpg versions of them to Walmart - get back slick 8x10 prints in about an hour, very cheap, look great. But I dinna know what would be the minimum rez I could get away with.

Best,

Bill
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #6
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
hey bill,

my scans seem to be around 200+ kb.

which is bigger mb or kb? doh!

i believe i have already mentioned elsewhere that math is not my strong suit...
joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #7
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
hhmmm, i think we're outta sync here bill.

this stuff is confusing and i really don't know if my question is at all relevant.

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #8
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,162
megabites are 1000 times bigger than kilobites (I think). If you've got a buddy doing the printing for you, then take 2 files with you of a picture, one at max scanner resolution and the other at the second highest, and see what works best. Scan at 100%.
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #9
richard_l
Registered User
 
richard_l's Avatar
 
richard_l is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 1,386
The optimum resolution for most photo quality printers is around 300 ppi (pixels per inch), so just multiply the dimensions of the print (in inches) by 300 to get the pixel dimensions. For an 8" x 10" that would be 2400 x 3000. However, as the others have indicated, it's best just to save at the maximum resolution of which your scanner is capable.
__________________
"Simplicity is the ultimate elegance." Leonardo Da Vinci
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #10
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
that's a good idea frank. unfortunately i wasn't smart enough to start thinking about all this till i made a bunch of scans and saved them all at the same size.

i will follow your suggestion though, with the next batch.

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #11
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by backalley photo
hey bill,

my scans seem to be around 200+ kb.

which is bigger mb or kb? doh!

i believe i have already mentioned elsewhere that math is not my strong suit...
joe
1mb is 1024kb. I only have to know that because my day job is software programming.

When I reduce my images to post online, I typically end up with a file less than 100kb in size as well. But I would not try printing that.

Best,

Bill
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #12
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
so, my 200 or so kb size scans are not gonna print well at 8x10?

damn...

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #13
shaaktiman
Registered User
 
shaaktiman's Avatar
 
shaaktiman is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Age: 38
Posts: 242
I think I understand your question, maybe this will help.

As a general rule, for inkjet printing, you want to scan to a size that allows you to print at 300 dpi. 200 is really the minimum though to get decent results. So, if you are printing something that's exactly 8 x 10, you want an image that's at least 1600 x 2000 pixels (to print at 200 dpi) and optimally 2400 by 3000 pixels (for better results at 300 dpi.)

You should also avoid "res'ing up" your image to get to the desired final resolution. It will get rid of the jaggies if your resolution is really way too low, but your image will just get mushy and soft instead. Scan at the resolution that you plan on printing at. So, if you're planning on scanning a piece of 35mm film and you want to print an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi, you should scan it in at around 2200 dpi, (not accounting for cropping.)

adam
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=491'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #14
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,162
Film rules!
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #15
Scarpia
Registered User
 
Scarpia's Avatar
 
Scarpia is offline
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NYC and Warrensburg, NY USA
Posts: 724
Today I received the May 10 edition of PC Magazine. There is an excellent article on this topic on page 72 and while it concerns itself with printing pictures from digital cameras the principles are certainly adaptable to scans. Try www.pcmag.com and if its not on there it is well worth buying a copy.
Kurt M.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=153'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #16
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
my head hurts...

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #17
schaubild
light chaser
 
schaubild's Avatar
 
schaubild is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: near Lucerne, Switzerland
Posts: 255
I always try to scan with the optical resolution of the scanner, in the case of the Nikon 8000 this would be 4000dpi. This gives me a lot of image information to work with (6x9 slide with 48 bit colour depth gives a ca. 340 mb TIFF). I do resizing and some sharpening if required just before print.
If I know I'm using the image only for the web I scan at 1200 dpi and work on it. Then again resizing, sharpening as last steps before publishing.

The reason for these procedures: I learned a long time ago from a pro that it's easier to make the quality of an image worse than vice versa. Just try to imagine you did THE shot, only to find out you degraded the quality to save memory and can't now get a decent output? So I shoot or scan with max resolution all the time. Just my 5 cent...
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2005   #18
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 4,023
Joe

most of these answers are pretty helpful regarding what you can do with a printer taking into account max dpi for that printer. The calculations are also pretty helpful and you should save those. Finally the advice to scan at max and then 'adjust the resolution' in the software .

What image management software are you using?

Jan
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2005   #19
GeneW
aka StarbuckGuy
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 67
Posts: 3,225
What Jan said!

For images you want printed, scan at max resolution of the scanner. Then when you edit them, you'll need to crop the image to the proportions of the print size -- same as enlarging.

In PS or PSE this is easy. For your print image, select the crop tool and in the dialog window set the attributes to (for landscape)

Width: 10 in
Height: 8 in
Resolution: 300

Adjust image as wanted with levels and brightness controls, remove dust specks and scratchs, perform any desired dodging and burning, sharpen with a little USM, viewing image at 100% while sharpening, then Save As to a slightly different filename so you don't overwrite your original scan.

Think of your max-res scan as your digital negative. You can re-use it for different print sizes or sizing for the web.

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Bessa T, Zero Image 35mm Pinhole, Canon S90, Nikon F100, Lumix G2
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2005   #20
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,199
Take a look at the following site. You can also buy the info in printed format for reading in the John.

http://www.scantips.com/

Robert
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2005   #21
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,689
If you're using the Canon 27xx, then scan and save at 2720dpi. That's the best quality, and saves you from having to rescan later.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2005   #22
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,703
more info...good...

i use photoshop 7 and am still in a major learning curve.
gene, you told me that before, about saving in a different name, wish i had remembered it.

robert, thanks for the site, will read soon.

joe
__________________
what can i say?

heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie with a tech-type question. TimH FSU Former Soviet Union RF 5 01-29-2006 06:56
New Member, New Bessa-R Owner, Question Theo-Prof Cosina Voigtlander Bessa 2 04-14-2005 11:58
Any Nikon F users, question. Todd.Hanz Off Topic 20 09-21-2004 02:27
Scanning BW film as color transparency or color negatives? martinfuchs Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 11 07-06-2004 11:13



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:29.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.