Photo Archive Resolution

What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.

TIA

Read
www.scantips.com


Bruceh wrote:
> What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
> 8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
>
> TIA
>
>

Whatever will give you 300ppi at the largest output size you ever expect
to need should be more than ample.

So if you have an 8x10 and never expect to go larger than 8x10, a scan at
300ppi/100% size will be fine. Your smaller origs will have to be scanned
at higher rez if you also want them to be able to span larger output
sizes than their orig. sizes.

Wayne Fulton's site, as always, will help.
Has a nifty resolution calculator there also.
scantips.com

Mac

I have struggled with this problem and asked this question for years
and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
will allow or require.

Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.

And remember, you can never do better than the orginals, so protect
them. My archives are for insurance and distribution to all my
children.

Mike

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:43:32 GMT, Bruceh <bruce@notmyemail.net> wrote:

>What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
>8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
>
>TIA
>
>

In article <401282af.2689734@news-server.satx.rr.com>,
mikenospamfox@satx.rroutspam.com says...
>
>
>I have struggled with this problem and asked this question for years
>and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
>As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
>me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
>in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
>will allow or require.
>
>Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
>afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
>120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
>scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
>scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
>This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
>may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.


I hope no one advised you to scan 35 mm film at 70 dpi <g> Film is
small, and the purpose of high resolution is to enlarge it. How large
do you need it to be?

The dpi question is very much like asking "how long should a rope be",
such answer depending if you are washing windows on skyscrapers, or just
need a handle for a wooden bucket. One size does not fit all needs. <g>

The right idea is very simple. You simply scan at whatever resolution
needed to create the image size needed to satisfy the goal that you
perceive to need. One does need a goal to have direction.

For showing images on a video screen, today that image size would not
likely be over 1024x768 pixels (if that) because no more than about 25%
of our computer screens are even a little larger than that now. Hard to
say what the future might bring for video, but to me, it doesnt seem
likely to exceed 1920x1080 pixel HDTV size for many years, simply due to
the need for defined standards.

To print on paper, then you decide what size you want to print, and you
try to provide about 300 pixels per inch at that size. So to print 8x10
inches would need 2400x3000 pixels. To print 6x4 inches would need
1800x1200 pixels (still much larger than video size). This is very
straight forward. Printers surely will become better in the future, but
human eyes probably wont, and these prints will look the same then as
they do now. It is like archiving photo prints from 75 years ago, they
still look very acceptable regarding detail, we dont need them done
over, which likely couldnt help anyway.

Your 2400 dpi scans of 35 mm film will allow printing 8x10 inches at
about 280 dpi (full frame, uncropped). If printing these images at 8x10
inches in the future is the goal, then you're doing the right thing.

However, we often like to crop, so a little more size would be good too,
but certainly it is in the ballpark, assuming you can get good 2400 dpi
scans (this is very questionable on a flatbed). However if perhaps you
wont ever print them at 8x10 inches size, then it's likely larger than
you will ever need (and frankly, most people cant imagine ever printing
all their old slides at 8x10 inch size). However, except for storage
requirements, too large is much better regarding surprises than is too
small. (lots of howevers <g>)

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

Thanks all for the replies.

re Mike: WRT slides/negatives, I agree that one should use the highest
resolution and it isn't overkill. For those negatives I have without prints
I will be doing that.

re: degrub & Mac: thanks for the link. I'll experiment with the 300ppi
in mind.

What's the opinion on scanning at 48-bit vs. 24-bit? The archiving is
for future generations, so I'm looking at 50+ years, not just 5-10 years.

Thanks!


Mike Fox wrote:

> I have struggled with this problem and asked this question for years
> and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
> As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
> me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
> in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
> will allow or require.
>
> Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
> afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
> 120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
> scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
> scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
> This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
> may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.
>
> And remember, you can never do better than the orginals, so protect
> them. My archives are for insurance and distribution to all my
> children.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:43:32 GMT, Bruceh <bruce@notmyemail.net> wrote:
>
> >What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
> >8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
> >

In article <4012ADD0.5B6EDE1@notmyemail.net>, bruce@notmyemail.net
says...

> re: degrub & Mac: thanks for the link. I'll experiment with the 300ppi
> in mind.

Remember, that's a ballpark figure for final output size ppi, not
necessarily the ppi at which you'll actually need to scan.

Mac

48 bit only if you are going to do corrections in PS or equal.
Otherwise, you can correct in the scan software and save in 24 bit.
THere are many people that scan images in 48 bit with just the white and
black points set and embed a profile in the tiff file for their archive
image. The only apparent advantage of 48 bit is if you have to make
large corrections in PS and want to avoid possible posterization. The
eye had a very hard time distinguishing otherwise.

Frank

Bruceh wrote:
> Thanks all for the replies.
>
> re Mike: WRT slides/negatives, I agree that one should use the highest
> resolution and it isn't overkill. For those negatives I have without prints
> I will be doing that.
>
> re: degrub & Mac: thanks for the link. I'll experiment with the 300ppi
> in mind.
>
> What's the opinion on scanning at 48-bit vs. 24-bit? The archiving is
> for future generations, so I'm looking at 50+ years, not just 5-10 years.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Mike Fox wrote:
>
>
>>I have struggled with this problem and asked this question for years
>>and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
>>As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
>>me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
>>in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
>>will allow or require.
>>
>>Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
>>afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
>>120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
>>scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
>>scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
>>This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
>>may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.
>>
>>And remember, you can never do better than the orginals, so protect
>>them. My archives are for insurance and distribution to all my
>>children.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:43:32 GMT, Bruceh <bruce@notmyemail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
>>>8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
>>>
>
>

I will be using PS (I'm a novice) for color corrections and
dust/scratch removals. Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?

I'm thinking that since this is for long term archiving, it would
be nice to have 48 bits, but does it matter in 50 years?

bruceh


> 48 bit only if you are going to do corrections in PS or equal.
> Otherwise, you can correct in the scan software and save in 24 bit.
> THere are many people that scan images in 48 bit with just the white and
> black points set and embed a profile in the tiff file for their archive
> image. The only apparent advantage of 48 bit is if you have to make
> large corrections in PS and want to avoid possible posterization. The
> eye had a very hard time distinguishing otherwise.
>
> Frank

"Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?" In general yes. If you are
comparing PS to the std scanning software shipped with most scanners,
IMHO definitely. PS versus high end scanning software - maybe. There are
some things that PS is better at or PS is unique in its abilities.
Plug-ins provide tools that you might not get elsewhere.

One issue you will have to deal with over the next X years will be
converting to new media types and formats periodically. i buy high
quality media (Mitsui gold) for archiving purposes, even though i
suspect i will have to move the images to other media within the next 5
years just to keep up. SO factor that in.

Bruceh wrote:
> I will be using PS (I'm a novice) for color corrections and
> dust/scratch removals. Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?
>
> I'm thinking that since this is for long term archiving, it would
> be nice to have 48 bits, but does it matter in 50 years?
>
> bruceh
>
>
>
>>48 bit only if you are going to do corrections in PS or equal.
>>Otherwise, you can correct in the scan software and save in 24 bit.
>>THere are many people that scan images in 48 bit with just the white and
>>black points set and embed a profile in the tiff file for their archive
>>image. The only apparent advantage of 48 bit is if you have to make
>>large corrections in PS and want to avoid possible posterization. The
>>eye had a very hard time distinguishing otherwise.
>>
>>Frank
>
>