«

Always scan at maximum optical resolution (2400 ppi in the case of the
Epson 2400/2450 scanners). This gives you the most flexibility in post
processing, including sharpening, downsampling, etc work.

The biggest advantage in doing the processing after the fact is that
you can un-do operations that reduce quality, where if you allow the
scan process to do the work, you're basically stuck with the image
presented by the scan as a baseline unless you re-scan it.

There is no fully automated way of ensuring best quality scans to date.
Many of the best looking photos on film require a lot of adjustment and
handcraft to achieve their best appearance in the digital domain.

Check out <http://www.scantips.com> for lots more hints and info on
scanning.

Godfrey

In article <bfp1a0$bte$>, Wildey Johnson
<> wrote:

> I am scanning sides for the first time with an Epson 2400 into the PSD
> format. My intent is to process and view the images on a 1024 wide pixel
> flat screen. I am setting the output image(from the scanner) at a with of
> 1023 pixels. Is this the best procedure or should I specify a larger output
> image and resize after processing? What is the best resolution to set for
> scanning the slide? What processing (if any) should be done by the scanner?
> Does scanner processing do more or less damage than PhotoShop Elements 2?
> It would be great if there is an automated adjustment that would produce an
> image equal to that on the slide.

I just scanned a 35mm slide @ 300dpi and printed to 5" x 8" image, and
looking at it you wouldn't know it was from a slide. there is no
pixellation, degredation or whatever else.

granted when I scanned, I changed the output dimensions to 10" x 15" @
300dpi (and ended up with a file size of 40mb)

I scan with an Epson Perfection 1660 Photo scanner.

But, I'll probably just change the resolution also later on, when i'm
printing seriously.*ugh* thats gonna be a slow process...


"Godfrey DiGiorgi" <> wrote in message
news:240720031000036354%...
> Always scan at maximum optical resolution (2400 ppi in the case of the
> Epson 2400/2450 scanners). This gives you the most flexibility in post
> processing, including sharpening, downsampling, etc work.
>
> The biggest advantage in doing the processing after the fact is that
> you can un-do operations that reduce quality, where if you allow the
> scan process to do the work, you're basically stuck with the image
> presented by the scan as a baseline unless you re-scan it.
>
> There is no fully automated way of ensuring best quality scans to date.
> Many of the best looking photos on film require a lot of adjustment and
> handcraft to achieve their best appearance in the digital domain.
>
> Check out <http://www.scantips.com> for lots more hints and info on
> scanning.
>
> Godfrey
>
> In article <bfp1a0$bte$>, Wildey Johnson
> <> wrote:
>
> > I am scanning sides for the first time with an Epson 2400 into the PSD
> > format. My intent is to process and view the images on a 1024 wide
pixel
> > flat screen. I am setting the output image(from the scanner) at a with
of
> > 1023 pixels. Is this the best procedure or should I specify a larger
output
> > image and resize after processing? What is the best resolution to set
for
> > scanning the slide? What processing (if any) should be done by the
scanner?
> > Does scanner processing do more or less damage than PhotoShop Elements
2?
> > It would be great if there is an automated adjustment that would produce
an
> > image equal to that on the slide.

>
> Then you probably weren't actually scanning at 300 dpi, which would have
been
> obvious on a 5 x 8 print.
>

actually I was. Every person has different methods, and I was trained to
enlarge when scanning, and not afterward, thus decreasing the chance of
image degredation when enlarging. Coming from a printing background, where
we were enlarging upwards of 30"x20" posters, this is the method I was
trained to do, and my settings rarely change.

granted, as I said, that this particular scan was a test to see the output
on a Epson Stylus Photo 1280 @ 8x10 as a first photo print, I'm not seeing
any issues with scanning at 300dpi. I've had photos scanned at 240dpi and
printed to 8x10 without any issues also.

each to his own I suppose. I just find it pointless having 100mb + image
files when one has over 1000 slides to scan.

-- L

[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:06:48 -0400,
"Lisa Duskis" <> wrote:

>> Then you probably weren't actually scanning at 300 dpi, which would have been
>> obvious on a 5 x 8 print.
>
>actually I was.

Doubtful.

>Every person has different methods, and I was trained to
>enlarge when scanning, and not afterward, thus decreasing the chance of
>image degredation when enlarging. ...

Meaning that the scanner was probably running at higher resolution. 300 dpi
on a 24 mm x 36 mm frame would be a capture at 283 x 425 pixels. Printed at 5
x 8, that would be real resolution of 56 dots per inch, which would definitely
be very noticeable.

>granted, as I said, that this particular scan was a test to see the output
>on a Epson Stylus Photo 1280 @ 8x10 as a first photo print, I'm not seeing
>any issues with scanning at 300dpi. I've had photos scanned at 240dpi and
>printed to 8x10 without any issues also.

You're almost certainly not scanning at 300 dpi, much less 240 dpi. That's
your target printing resolution, not your actual scanning resolution.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]