Re: Which dpi?

In article <431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>G'day
>
>Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
>The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
>few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
>I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give
>better quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>
B&W prints will generally have more information on them than the
standard rule of thumb of 300ppi for corner shop colour prints, but
generally this isn't more than 600ppi. With the poor MTF of that
scanner at 1200ppi and the limited information on the prints above
600ppi, I doubt that scanning at 1200ppi can be justified on any
grounds.

Ideally you should scan at the limit of the equipment (in this case the
combination of the source material and the scanner probably sets that
around 600ppi) and archive this. Then resample to the optimum output
resolution for your final application using the best resampling
algorithm available to you.

>Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and
>thought I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this
>too please?

Save as Tiff with compression enabled: this is lossless compression
unlike jpeg - although the tiff specification permits jpeg compression,
few packages support it. Not only will you be able to save in less
space than .bmp format but, more importantly, you will be able to
archive your images with more bits per pixel, more dynamic range.

> In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
>archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
>possible.
>
Best archive or best reproduction - they are not the same thing. Best
archive means saving more information that your existing equipment can
reproduce, because sometime in the future you will upgrade, and you
don't want to rescan everything all over again.

>Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>Bronwyn ;-)

Unusual name - only ever met one person called that before, they were
Australian too, but it sounds Welsh. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Thanks to all who replied with such detailed and helpful information!!

Larger file size is not a problem at the moment and as was mentioned
storage is cheap anyway. Time....well, there are never enough hours in
the day but I don't mind spending extra time waiting for higher scans
and better results. I've done a couple of tests at different dpi's and
could see a difference, so think I will continue with a higher dpi.

I don't even know what type of camera equipment was used to take the
originals but they have been fairly well kept in black-paged photo
albums and are in good condition although a couple which appear to have
been kept out of the album have yellowed with age, but still quite
acceptable. Another reason I think the higher dpi is a good idea, is
that I might never have access to these original photos again, they are
only on-loan to me until I can scan them, so the time spent now might be
a good investment in the future.

The suggestions about .tif sounds like a good idea too, thanks!

Jim...I never open my original photo files, they are stored on a
separate HDD (and backed up) and I play with a copy, so will do the same
with these photos.

Hecate...good idea to resave every few years, storage media changes
regularly too.

Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)

Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
envisaged.

Again, thanks so much for all the help, it's truly appreciated! These
groups are such great ways of getting lots of support and helpful advice
that was never available in pre-internet days.

Bronwyn ;-)




Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>> G'day
>>
>> Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>> some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>>
>> The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with
>> a few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>> have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>>
>> I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give
>> better quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>> inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>>
> B&W prints will generally have more information on them than the
> standard rule of thumb of 300ppi for corner shop colour prints, but
> generally this isn't more than 600ppi. With the poor MTF of that
> scanner at 1200ppi and the limited information on the prints above
> 600ppi, I doubt that scanning at 1200ppi can be justified on any grounds.
>
> Ideally you should scan at the limit of the equipment (in this case the
> combination of the source material and the scanner probably sets that
> around 600ppi) and archive this. Then resample to the optimum output
> resolution for your final application using the best resampling
> algorithm available to you.
>
>> Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and
>> thought I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this
>> too please?
>
>
> Save as Tiff with compression enabled: this is lossless compression
> unlike jpeg - although the tiff specification permits jpeg compression,
> few packages support it. Not only will you be able to save in less
> space than .bmp format but, more importantly, you will be able to
> archive your images with more bits per pixel, more dynamic range.
>
>> In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
>> archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
>> possible.
>>
> Best archive or best reproduction - they are not the same thing. Best
> archive means saving more information that your existing equipment can
> reproduce, because sometime in the future you will upgrade, and you
> don't want to rescan everything all over again.
>
>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>> Bronwyn ;-)
>
>
> Unusual name - only ever met one person called that before, they were
> Australian too, but it sounds Welsh. ;-)

In article <431d19ae@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)
>
But aren't all the true Aussie's black? ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:23:08 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:


>Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
>so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
>this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
>envisaged.
One more thing, I don't know what app you're using to edit, but it's
sensible to scan the images as RGB. It makes it a lot easier to get
rid of any colour casts through, e.g., channels in Photoshop.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

LOL.....got a point there!! Don't know my family history so can't
elaborate, sorry!! ;-))

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <431d19ae@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>>
>> Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)
>>
> But aren't all the true Aussie's black? ;-)

G'day Hecate

I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
one did......so I stuck with it.

Bronwyn ;-)

Hecate wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:23:08 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
>>so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
>>this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
>>envisaged.
>
> One more thing, I don't know what app you're using to edit, but it's
> sensible to scan the images as RGB. It makes it a lot easier to get
> rid of any colour casts through, e.g., channels in Photoshop.
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Too much trash in the gene pool to definitively trace your mitochondrial
DNA back to Lucy, forget Eve (see Leakey and Berger, respectively) but
conventional science suggests we all are cousins, black or true blue or
perpetual pink.
So let us return to snooty comments about 1 hour processed snapshots, yes?
Regards,
theo d Crow

> LOL.....got a point there!! Don't know my family history so can't
> elaborate, sorry!! ;-))
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> But aren't all the true Aussie's black? ;-)



--
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often.

>Too much trash in the gene pool to definitively trace your mitochondrial
>DNA back to Lucy

And then, apparently, some other people's mitochondrial DNA can be
traced back quite reliably to "I love Lucy"... ;o)

Yes, we all have the same roots if one goes far enough but that wasn't
the *context*. In the *given* context simply noting that Aborigines
are the only true natives of Australia is certainly a valid point.

Especially when it's both made in the friendly and lighthearted manner
(as Kennedy did!) and taken as such (as Bronwyn did!).

>So let us return to snooty comments about 1 hour processed snapshots, yes?

Indeed! Physician heal thyself!

Don.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:17 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:

>G'day Hecate
>
>I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
>ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
>work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
>one did......so I stuck with it.
>
>Bronwyn ;-)
>
I'm sorry for your loss ;-) (And thereby speaks a Photoshop snob <g>)

Then you'll just have to use the tried and trusted method of
empiricism (or as I'm sure your local down-to-earth Aussie would call
it - trial and error) ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

ROFLMHO!!.......actually I tried PS7 but an error message said the
scanner wasn't installed and after spending four days getting through
that obstacle I didn't have the patience to start again in PS.

Must admit I had reservations about iPhoto Express too, but it's giving
quite good results. This whole project (while time consuming) is better
than I first anticipated and this is the most work I've done with this
scanner. In hindsight it was a waste of money, although I did have good
intentions at the time but work got in the way, ;-((

I'm sure the owner of these photo albums will be more than happy that he
will be able to watch a DVD of his 50 yr old photos rather than having
the albums stored somewhere out of sight, although that out of sight
place meant they are in good condition and can now stay that way.

Bronwyn ;-)





Hecate wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:17 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>G'day Hecate
>>
>>I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
>>ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
>>work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
>>one did......so I stuck with it.
>>
>>Bronwyn ;-)
>>
>
> I'm sorry for your loss ;-) (And thereby speaks a Photoshop snob <g>)
>
> Then you'll just have to use the tried and trusted method of
> empiricism (or as I'm sure your local down-to-earth Aussie would call
> it - trial and error) ;-)
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...