Home Scanning for Commerical Use

[One4All]

Reading postings in this group, I find scanning has been made far more
mysterious than it is, Wayne Fulton, notwithstanding. Wayne needs a
good editor to compress (.jpeg level 5) his valuable knowledge, for
despite his efforts to simplify, his verbosity complicates. )

I have an Epson Perfection 4870 Photo flatbed scanner with Epson Scan
as the driver. They are simplicity incarnate, but, I have some
questions, which relate to Wayne's basic question, "What do you want
your output to be?"

I'm scanning slides and film, and I have two outputs: Family for 4x6
and (rarely) 8x10, and commercial (greeting cards, calendars,
packaging, posters, magazine covers, etc.).

Epson Scan offers 24- and 48-bit color depth. I suspect 24 bits should
be enough for family, but would commercial require 48 bits? Of course,
file size doubles, and I want to know whether the increase in quality
would be worth it.

Epson Scan only asks for output resolution, not input resolution, and
the target size of the image, resulting in attention to file size. This
gets rid of the mathematics, but leaves the question: "What file size
is optimum for commercial output? In short, should one scan for maximum
file size with one's equipment, if one wants highest quality possible?
That is, 48-bit color depth and the highest output resolution?

I suppose the answer is yes, because "highest quality possible" is
possible only with the Imacon and higher-capable drum scanners. Right?
So, maybe 4870 scanning is not commercially viable, unless the buyers
increase quality with vector-based editing programs.

 

[rafe bustin]

Epson Scan only asks for output resolution, not input resolution, and
the target size of the image, resulting in attention to file size. This
gets rid of the mathematics, but leaves the question: "What file size
is optimum for commercial output? In short, should one scan for maximum
file size with one's equipment, if one wants highest quality possible?
That is, 48-bit color depth and the highest output resolution?

I suppose the answer is yes, because "highest quality possible" is
possible only with the Imacon and higher-capable drum scanners. Right?
So, maybe 4870 scanning is not commercially viable, unless the buyers
increase quality with vector-based editing programs.

The Epson flatbed scanners produce an image that's
quite soft at their max optical dpi. There's probably
not much lost by letting the scanner driver down-
sample to 2400 dpi (from 4800), or downsampling in
Photoshop just after the scan.

I personally find little benefit in 16 bit scanning,
but mine seems to be a minority opinion (and I can
live with that.)

Bottom line, I think you can cut your file size by
a factor of eight by using 1/2 the linear resolution
and 8 bit (vs 16 bit) files.

Why not try making some scans/prints both ways and
try for yourself?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Neil Gould]

I'm scanning slides and film, and I have two outputs: Family for 4x6
and (rarely) 8x10, and commercial (greeting cards, calendars,
packaging, posters, magazine covers, etc.).

Epson Scan offers 24- and 48-bit color depth. I suspect 24 bits should
be enough for family, but would commercial require 48 bits? Of course,
file size doubles, and I want to know whether the increase in quality
would be worth it.

Epson Scan only asks for output resolution, not input resolution, and
the target size of the image, resulting in attention to file size.
This gets rid of the mathematics, but leaves the question: "What file
size is optimum for commercial output? In short, should one scan for
maximum file size with one's equipment, if one wants highest quality
possible? That is, 48-bit color depth and the highest output
resolution?

The commercial uses that you've identified have very different
requirements. Greeting cards are typically smaller than page size and
frequently use soft images. It's conceivable that your Epson can produce
adequate images for that market. OTOH, calendars, posters and magazine
covers typically use high-quality images that would be a challenge for the
Epson, to put it subtly. ;-)

File sizes for commercial output vary based on the output resolution, not
the color bit depth. To reproduce the amount of color available in 24-bit
scan requires printing techniques that most clients are unwilling to pay
for. Typical resolution requirements for printed output suggests that the
dpi = 2x the printed lpi. For a 150 line screen, a 300 dpi image
resolution is most often considered adequate.

That said, optimizing images for pre-press requires a knowledge of the
press to be used, as well as a general knowledge of the printing process.
For example, highlight and shadow areas get seriously compressed, so if
those are important areas of the image, it will require some image
manipulation in an editor to prepare them for press. Because of this, it
is desirable to have as much data as possible from the scan. So, while in
most cases the final resolution of your output image need not exceed 24
bits, it may be practical to use a higher bit depth in the scan. Whether
or not the Epson is capable of providing a useful quality at higher bit
depths is a different matter.

HTH,

 

[-]

"What file size is optimum for commercial output?

"Commercial ouput" is way too unspecific. You need to know the optimum
printing dpi for the printing process and size your files to that standard.

You can always downsample from 48 to 24 once you are sure that your scan is
good enough and that it will not require any curve tweaking. Do some
testing by maniupulating via curves a 24 bit copy and then a 48 bit copy of
your file. What for posterization and check the resulting histogram. See
if you can tell the difference by looking at test prints (as opposed to just
at your monitor).

Doug

 

[hpowen]

but would commercial require 48 bits?

Not directly. The (arguable) advantage of 48 bit files is the ability
to perform edits in Photoshop without destroying significant pixel
data. Your service provider for your commercial endeavours will want a
24 bit CMYK file.

What file size is optimum for commercial output?

It depends on the output size and the line screen the printer is using.
If your image will be printed at 4x5 inches @ 133 lpi (lines per inch)
then the dpi of the image should be from 1.5 to 2 times the linescreen
at the final printed dimension. In this case, this would result in a
4x5 image @ 200-266dpi.

highest quality possible possible only with the Imacon and

higher-capable drum scanners. Right?

Right. You should consider a film scanner for commercial work, unless
you are scanning tack sharp custom prints.

So, maybe 4870 scanning is not commercially viable, unless the buyers

increase quality with vector-based editing programs.

There is no such thing (in my experience) as a vector based image
editor.

I suggest you do some serious reading and research. Above all, talk to
your printer about his requirements. The art of CMYK conversions alone
can fill as small book, and you didn't even mention it in your original
post. Your questions lead me to believe that you are just getting
started in this sort of work, and mistakes on your part can be, at
best, disappointing, and at worst, very expensive.

 

[hpowen]

I replied earlier but it hasn't ever shown up. My appologies if this

but would commercial require 48 bits?

Not directly. The (arguable) advantage of 48 bit files is the ability
to perform edits in Photoshop without destroying significant pixel
data. Your service provider for your commercial endeavours will want a
24 bit CMYK file.

What file size is optimum for commercial output?

It depends on the output size and the line screen the printer is using.
If your image will be printed at 4x5 inches @ 133 lpi (lines per inch)
then the dpi of the image should be from 1.5 to 2 times the linescreen
at the final printed dimension. In this case, this would result in a
4x5 image @ 200-266dpi.

highest quality possible possible only with the Imacon and

higher-capable drum scanners. Right?

Right. You should consider a film scanner for commercial work, unless
you are scanning tack sharp custom prints.

So, maybe 4870 scanning is not commercially viable, unless the buyers

increase quality with vector-based editing programs.

There is no such thing (in my experience) as a vector based image
editor.

I suggest you do some serious reading and research. Above all, talk to
your printer about his requirements. The art of CMYK conversions alone
can fill as small book, and you didn't even mention it in your original
post. Your questions lead me to believe that you are just getting
started in this sort of work, and mistakes on your part can be, at
best, disappointing, and at worst, very expensive.

 

[One4All]

I personally find little benefit in 16 bit scanning,
but mine seems to be a minority opinion (and I can
live with that.)

Thank you for replying. I've read a few Web pages re: 16-bit scanning,
& like everything else in technology, that's where the future is going.
I've decided that for any purpose beyond home output, 16-bit is the way
to go.

Why not try making some scans/prints both ways and
try for yourself?

Good question. However, I doubt my home printer (Epson 1280) will show
any difference. And, even if it did, the difference would not be enough
to justify the higher file size for family 4x6's, an occasional 8x10,
or even an adventure into art work.

Others in this thread clearly point out the limitations of my scanner
for commercial production, and I have some questions of them.

 

[One4All]

The (arguable) advantage of 48 bit files is the ability
to perform edits in Photoshop without destroying significant pixel
data. Your service provider for your commercial endeavours will want a
24 bit CMYK file.

Thank you for replying. I'm not working with a single service provider.
I want to use my home scanner to create customized CD-ROM's to send to
a variety of prospective buyers of my images. The question is whether
the CD images will be enough for them to go on or whether the CD's only
provide examples for which the original negatives/slides will be
needed.

You should consider a film scanner for commercial work, unless you

are scanning tack sharp >custom prints.

Is there a quality difference between a home flatbed scanner at X dpi
and a home film scanner at the same dpi?

There is no such thing (in my experience) as a vector based image
editor.

My terminology was incorrect, and you are right. Genuine Fractals, a PS
plug-in, is what I was referring to. I understand many pre-press
operations can increase resolution, using this or similar software.

I suggest you do some serious reading and research.

God knows, I've tried.

The art of CMYK conversions alone can fill as small book, and you didn't even mention it in your
original post.

CMYK conversion is a problem for PS, my home printer, and whomever buys
my images. Not me. As one who has color-printed on paper in the old
days, I know CMYK well. I don't know what that has to do with anything,
here.

Your questions lead me to believe that you are just getting
started in this sort of work, and mistakes on your part can be, at
best, disappointing, and at worst, very expensive.

That's why I'm asking.

 

[One4All]

"Commercial ouput" is way too unspecific. You need to know the
optimum

printing dpi for the printing process and size your files to that

standard.

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your time and consideration.
But, knowing the optimum printing dpi is what I don't know and cannot
know because I want to scan for whatever commercial uses there may be.
If down-sampling is needed, ok, because image quality will not be lost
as opposed to up-sampling.

I'm beginning to think, "Go for it, regardless of file size." The
bigger the file size my equipment can produce for marketing to
potential commercial users, the better. Or, if my equipment falls short
of commercial requirements (say, for calendars, posters, billboards!,
etc.) would I be better off to simply burn my scans to CD's as samples
& submit original negatives/slides when requested?

Why should I go for huge file size to store on my system if it's
futile? It's looking like at some point, whether by me or a commercial
buyer, a negative/slide that will be printed at the highest resolution
must be done on either an Imacon or drum scanner. No?

See if you can tell the difference by looking at test prints (as opposed to just
at your monitor).

The question is not whether prints look good on my monitor or printer.
The question is whether my 35mm and medium-format images, scanned with
an Epson Perfection 4870 Photo scanner at the highest bit-depth and
largest ouput size (Epson Scan, thankfully, does not ask for input
scanning resolution) will produce an image file suitable for pre-press
production without requiring an original negative/slide for drum
scanning.

A second question, Doug: If 300 dpi is the standard for output, whether
by an inkjet printer or offset printer (You know, lpi is 1.5 or 2.0 of
input dpi.), why is a 1GB file better than a 250 MB file for, say, a
16x20" output? Why is it that a huge file is better than a smaller file
for offset printing, if the offset printer can only handle 300 dpi?

 

[One4All]

OTOH, calendars, posters and magazine
covers typically use high-quality images that would be a challenge for the
Epson, to put it subtly. ;-)

Thanks. I needed that.

To reproduce the amount of color available in 24-bit scan requires printing techniques that most
clients are unwilling to pay for.

Wait, wait. Do you mean 48-bit (16 bits/RGB channel)? I thought 24-bit
(8 bits/RGB channel) was standard, at least for now.

Typical resolution requirements for printed output suggests that the
dpi = 2x the printed lpi. For a 150 line screen, a 300 dpi image
resolution is most often considered adequate.

So, why are high-priced Imacon and higher-priced drum scanners needed,
if my flatbed Epson 4870 scanner can produce a 300 dpi image, which is
adequate for commercial offset printers? Am I missing something, here?

This goes to the heart of my inquiry: Why is a 300 dpi image ouput from
my Epson 4870 inferior to a 300 dpi output from an Imacon? Maybe it's
in the film holder. Maybe it's in the.... I don't know what.

 

[rafe bustin]

So, why are high-priced Imacon and higher-priced drum scanners needed,
if my flatbed Epson 4870 scanner can produce a 300 dpi image, which is
adequate for commercial offset printers? Am I missing something, here?

This goes to the heart of my inquiry: Why is a 300 dpi image ouput from
my Epson 4870 inferior to a 300 dpi output from an Imacon? Maybe it's
in the film holder. Maybe it's in the.... I don't know what.

The truth of the matter is that scanning
technology has gotten better and cheaper,
by leaps and bounds, over the last few
years. Much to the benefit of you and me,
and much to the detriment of Imacon and
the drum scanner manufacturers, most of
whom are now dearly departed.

I'm not too familiar with Imacon, except
that it's a CCD scanner posing as a drum
scanner. I am familiar with several other
film scanner brands and models, including
Microtek, Polaroid, Nikon and Epson.

What I've seen of the Epson 4870 is that
its "apparent" resolution is about half
of the advertised value. I would not be
happy with one of these, for scanning
35 mm film. But I would take this
machine seriously for scanning MF or
LF film, particularly if cost were an
issue.

I also suspect that the Epson scanners
are over-filtered for aliasing, so in fact
their output benefits greatly from
sharpening.

Bottom line, the 4870 may very well be
good enough for your purposes. In any
case, it's way cheap compared to the
next step up, so there's no point
worrying about that "next step" unless
you're willing to spend a bunch more.

For all their alleged weaknesses, the
Epson flatbeds have always been a very
good value, IMO.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.co

 

[hpowen]

The question is whether the CD images will be enough for them to go on

or whether the CD's only provide examples for which the original
negatives/slides will be needed.

Most likely the latter. In any event, I would not send out unsolicited
high rez images. The temptation to steal them might be too great. (It's
not likely to happen, but why take a chance?)

Is there a quality difference between a home flatbed scanner at X dpi

and a home film scanner at the same dpi?

YES. DPI (or more properly, ppi) doesn't tell the whole story. Imagine
using the same camera with two different lenses: one a cheap Korean
knock-off and the other an optical masterpiece. The sensor or film in
your camera is going to deliver a consistent resolution, but the image
taken with the cheap lens will be obviously inferior. Same thing with
scanners. I hope that made sense.

My terminology was incorrect, and you are right. Genuine Fractals, a

PS plug-in, is what I was referring to. I understand many pre-press
operations can increase resolution, using this or similar software.

The abilities of this sort of software (which I own) is limited, and it
is not a magic bullet. It will not turn your flatbed scans into sharp,
high resolution images.

As one who has color-printed on paper in the old days, I know CMYK

well. I don't know what that has to do with anything, here.

As an artist or photographer, I thought you might be interested in
having complete control over how your image appears when it is printed.
I understand your point, however. I routinely send RGB images to a
stock house because it is what they require. The buyer of the stock
assumes responsibility for the conversion if the image is going to
press.

 

[Jon Bell]

So, why are high-priced Imacon and higher-priced drum scanners needed,
if my flatbed Epson 4870 scanner can produce a 300 dpi image, which is
adequate for commercial offset printers? Am I missing something, here?

Resolution in ppi is not the only figure of merit for a scanner. For one
thing, 300 ppi isn't going to do you much good if the scanner's optics
simply produce a blur at that level. Also, you want good color rendition
and the capability to capture a wide dynamic range (range of brightness or
density levels on the film). In particular, scanning transparencies can
tax the dynamic range of all but the very best scanners.

 

[Don]

I've read a few Web pages re: 16-bit scanning,
& like everything else in technology, that's where the future is going.
I've decided that for any purpose beyond home output, 16-bit is the way
to go.

A couple of points to, maybe, put things into perspective.

Humans' native bit depth is only 8-bits (some even argue 6-bits).
Therefore, we're simply unable of seeing things beyond 8-bits.

Because of that, both printing and display (monitor) technology is not
likely to go beyond 8-bits. Indeed, if you look at a 16-bit image in
Photoshop at maximum magnification you'll see the pixels cross-hatched
in order to approximate colors it's unable to display.

However, 16-bit is essential for the following reason. Virtually all
images need to be processed regardless of what the target output
device is. And each time an image is processed it's degraded, even
though this effect eventually levels off. Therefore, the advantage of
16-bit is to limit this image corruption and give the editing process
more elbow room. The final step, however, before the image is
"consumed", is usually to reduce it to 8 bits.

Don.

 

[One4All]

You've been very helpful. It's looking like I need to take images I
want to sell to a service provider to get highest-quality scans, altho
I do have a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II that I thought I no longer
needed because of the Epson 4870's high-resolution scanning ability.
Would the Minolta produce scans of high-enough quality that I wouldn't
need a service provider? (I'm trying to keep this process affordable).

Also, I'm going to buy a copy Photographer's Market to see which buyers
require what.

 

[Hecate]

Thanks. I needed that.


Wait, wait. Do you mean 48-bit (16 bits/RGB channel)? I thought 24-bit
(8 bits/RGB channel) was standard, at least for now.


So, why are high-priced Imacon and higher-priced drum scanners needed,
if my flatbed Epson 4870 scanner can produce a 300 dpi image, which is
adequate for commercial offset printers? Am I missing something, here?

Yes, you are. Neil is talking about printed output but is using 300
dpi. What he means is an image at 300 PPI. For example, with an Epson
printer I often use an image at 360 PPI but print it out at 1440 DPI.
There is a difference in the units of measurement - they are
describing different things.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Neil Gould]

Thanks. I needed that.


Wait, wait. Do you mean 48-bit (16 bits/RGB channel)? I thought 24-bit
(8 bits/RGB channel) was standard, at least for now.

No... I meant 24-bit (8 bits/channel). Printing presses and standard inks
will not reproduce 256 levels per color (equal to 8-bits) in a single
pass. To do so requires additional inks and/or press runs. This can get
expensive pretty quickly. I'd suggest that you visit a print shop for more
information.

So, why are high-priced Imacon and higher-priced drum scanners needed,
if my flatbed Epson 4870 scanner can produce a 300 dpi image, which is
adequate for commercial offset printers? Am I missing something, here?

The *resolution* is adequate for most commercial offset printers, but
that's only one aspect of image quality. Better scanners can produce
better images, and better images can lead to better printed output.
(Thanks to Hecate for pointing out that I should have used "pixels per
inch" (ppi), in my above example)

This goes to the heart of my inquiry: Why is a 300 dpi image ouput
from my Epson 4870 inferior to a 300 dpi output from an Imacon? Maybe
it's in the film holder. Maybe it's in the.... I don't know what.

I think that you may be looking at this too simplistically. There are
*many* qualities that differentiate scanners. The best way to learn this
may be to obtain scans from different scanners and compare them. As a
starting point, rafe b. has created a website that presents some scanner
comparisons: http://www.terrapinphoto.com Take a look and see what you
think.

Regards,

 

[Neil Gould]

No... I meant 24-bit (8 bits/channel). Printing presses and standard
inks will not reproduce 256 levels per color (equal to 8-bits) in a
single pass. To do so requires additional inks and/or press runs.
This can get expensive pretty quickly. I'd suggest that you visit a
print shop for more information.

I should clarify a couple of things, here (That's what I get for posting
before my coffee takes effect).

First of all, offset printing uses 4 colors; CMYK, not RGB. In the above
comment, I was presuming the conversion from RGB to CMYK.

Secondly, printing presses can only reproduce 1 level of an ink: 100%. To
emulate shades, the inks are screened, and the number of levels (or steps)
that can be printed is determined in part by the coarseness of the screen
(defined in lines per inch, or lpi).

The process of preparing a continuous tone image such as a photograph or
drawing for the press is called "halftoning" or "screening". There are
several consequences of this process, among them the compression of
highlight and shadow details.

None the less, it is still true that offset printing will not be able to
reproduce 256 levels (or steps) in a single pass.

Hope this helps.

Neil

 

[Gordon Moat]

standard.

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your time and consideration.
But, knowing the optimum printing dpi is what I don't know and cannot
know because I want to scan for whatever commercial uses there may be.
If down-sampling is needed, ok, because image quality will not be lost
as opposed to up-sampling.

I'm beginning to think, "Go for it, regardless of file size." The
bigger the file size my equipment can produce for marketing to
potential commercial users, the better. Or, if my equipment falls short
of commercial requirements (say, for calendars, posters, billboards!,
etc.) would I be better off to simply burn my scans to CD's as samples
& submit original negatives/slides when requested?

You should investigate <http://www.nancyscans.com>. If you have enough
level of commercial work, a commercial scanning and image hosting service
might be the answer. Nancy Scans is only one such company, and there are
several others with similar services.

The basic idea is to scan when you need it, and for the intended purpose.
While it might seem a good idea to archive, since you might save a little
time on delivery, doing a good scan does not really delay deliver by much
time.

Why should I go for huge file size to store on my system if it's
futile? It's looking like at some point, whether by me or a commercial
buyer, a negative/slide that will be printed at the highest resolution
must be done on either an Imacon or drum scanner. No?

Yes and no. You have some good answers in these postings, but file sizes
are not the only consideration. If you look at stock agencies, and see the
available download sizes, you might be surprised. However, many images
only get printed at fairly small sizes, often much less than full page.

The advantage of an Imacon is not so much the resolution, but the ability
to capture subtle shadow details without blowing out the highlights. A
drum scanner goes a step further, allowing very large enlargements, a
degree of control of scanner aperture to control edge contrast, and a more
finite tonality, depending upon original film image source. High end flat
scanners, like from creo, Fuji, and Dainippon Screen, offer similar good
shadow detail, relatively high resolution, and very fast scanning of
multiple items. All of these choices are expensive, likely too expensive
for one individual, though they are intended mostly for a business that
offers scanning services.

The question is not whether prints look good on my monitor or printer.
The question is whether my 35mm and medium-format images, scanned with
an Epson Perfection 4870 Photo scanner at the highest bit-depth and
largest ouput size (Epson Scan, thankfully, does not ask for input
scanning resolution) will produce an image file suitable for pre-press
production without requiring an original negative/slide for drum
scanning.

Depending upon the image, the answer could be yes. Content can be more
important than the technical quality. The questions you should be asking
are: can I do it better, and when should I do it better. Not all your
images will need what a drum scan (or similar) is capable of offering, but
when you choose to use something like that, hopefully you will understand
that there will be a noticeable improvement in printed output quality.

A second question, Doug: If 300 dpi is the standard for output, whether
by an inkjet printer or offset printer (You know, lpi is 1.5 or 2.0 of
input dpi.), why is a 1GB file better than a 250 MB file for, say, a
16x20" output? Why is it that a huge file is better than a smaller file
for offset printing, if the offset printer can only handle 300 dpi?

Unfortunate over-simplification . . . in commercial printing, the output
is actually 2400 (or 2540) dpi for each of the printing colours (Cyan,
Magenta, Yellow, and Black; sometimes others added, or substituted). Most
places still use a screen, with different angles for each colour. The
frequency of the screen has often been 150 lpi (lines per inch). Using
that 150 lpi number, many printing places requested image files to have
double that resolution, or 300 ppi. The funny thing is that you could give
those same printers a 400 ppi file, and on side by side comparison, there
would be a slightly noticeable printed output difference.

So that might bring up why not give the print shop 2400 ppi files. The
reality is that it would greatly slow down the printing output, and not be
interpreted well by the printing equipment. That recommended 300 ppi file
is interpreted in some other gear prior to the 2400 dpi printing output,
and that interpretation equipment generally does better with the smaller
files.

Inkjet is a completely different realm. The dpi manufacturers quote for
inkjet output is based on the placement of drops, without considering how
much those dots spread (this is called dot gain). Even commercial printing
methods suffer from dot gain, though not even close to the high dot gain
of inkjet systems. Inkjets often overlap those dots, which allows a
continuous tone appearance, though that also reduces actual resolution.
There is a default assumption, similar to line screen frequency, for many
inkjet systems. If you could find that default (sometimes explained in
some RIP software), then that could suggest a multiple. I have seen some
inkjet systems that were similar to a 133 lpi output, so using the 2x
multiple, that would imply 266 ppi files at the final printed dimensions.

If you don't want to go through the huge learning curve of commercial
printing, just stick with 300 ppi file sizes. If you want better colour
range, better tonality, or just really large high quality printing, then
get scans done at a professional service. Take the price of the scans,
times number of high quality scans, to see if you should buy a better
scanner (like an Imacon). You might find that 1000 high quality scans
could be enough money to just get a better scanner, though there is also
your time to consider.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

[One4All]

You should investigate <http://www.nancyscans.com>. If you have enough
level of commercial work, a commercial scanning and image hosting service
might be the answer. Nancy Scans is only one such company, and there are
several others with similar services.

Thanks for responding. Right now, I can't afford these services. Once I
can establish there is a market for my images, NancyScans, et.al., will
become viable. BTW, NancyScans is very good.

I guess my basic question is, "Can I produce a file from a negative or
transparency, scanned on an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner, that will meet
most commercial needs, short of highest-quality art standards? Or,
maybe I scan images to be accessed on a Website that, if there is a
buyer, NancyScans, et.al., will be able to produce whatever quality the
buyer wants, given a file scanned at the highest settings on the 4870.

The basic idea is to scan when you need it, and for the intended purpose.
While it might seem a good idea to archive, since you might save a little
time on delivery, doing a good scan does not really delay deliver by much
time.

Not sure what this means. I really am into archiving my images (family
& commercial). I need to get everything onto CD-R or DVD-R. Then, and
only then, I'll make prints for family, and prints and files for
commercial purposes. I'm beginning to think, "For commercial purposes,
set the 4870 to scan at 48-bit depth and maximum resolution for 300 dpi
output, regardless of file size, and burn these images to DVD-R's."

This contradicts my earlier thinking:

futile?

File sizes are not the only consideration. If you look at stock agencies, and see the
available download sizes, you might be surprised. However, many images
only get printed at fairly small sizes, often much less than full

page.

True. But, I guess to be on the safe side, I ought to scan at the
maximum settings to cover all my bases. One can always come down in
adjusting a file, but very risky up-sampling.

The advantage of an Imacon is not so much the resolution, but the ability
to capture subtle shadow details without blowing out the highlights. A
drum scanner goes a step further, allowing very large enlargements, a
degree of control of scanner aperture to control edge contrast, and a more
finite tonality, depending upon original film image source. High end flat
scanners, like from creo, Fuji, and Dainippon Screen, offer similar good
shadow detail, relatively high resolution, and very fast scanning of
multiple items. All of these choices are expensive, likely too expensive
for one individual, though they are intended mostly for a business that
offers scanning services.

When it comes down to it, send the negative/transparency to a scanning
service.

Content can be more important than the technical quality. The questions you should be asking
are: can I do it better, and when should I do it better. Not all your
images will need what a drum scan (or similar) is capable of offering, but
when you choose to use something like that, hopefully you will understand
that there will be a noticeable improvement in printed output

quality.

Point well taken.

If you don't want to go through the huge learning curve of commercial
printing, just stick with 300 ppi file sizes.

Of course, you mean 300 dpi for output resolution.

If you want better colour range, better tonality, or just really

large high quality printing, then

get scans done at a professional service. Take the price of the scans,
times number of high quality scans, to see if you should buy a better
scanner (like an Imacon). You might find that 1000 high quality scans
could be enough money to just get a better scanner, though there is also
your time to consider.

No, I don't have 1000 images that I need to buy an Imacon. I'm not a
professional photographer, but one who thinks he's taken some pretty
damn good images over a lifetime, and your advice has helped me a lot
as to some options that can balance my vanity needs with marketplace
realities.