cropping photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Bolshoy Huy, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. Is it better to enlarge a photo from a negative then scan it,
    crop then print out, rather than scan a 4x6 then enlarge & crop
    then print it? Should I let the lab crop?

    I am concerned with grain in photos enlarged from ISO400&800 negatives.
    On 4x6 I could hardly see it. I suppose enlarging
    scanned 4x6's on computer would produce some noise too.
    Mr.Bolshoy Huy, Mar 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    > Is it better to enlarge a photo from a negative then scan it,
    > crop then print out, rather than scan a 4x6 then enlarge & crop
    > then print it? Should I let the lab crop?
    >
    > I am concerned with grain in photos enlarged from ISO400&800
    > negatives. On 4x6 I could hardly see it. I suppose enlarging
    > scanned 4x6's on computer would produce some noise too.


    It depends on many factors, in particular how good the negative scanner
    is.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    Sheldon Guest

    IMHO I think you are better off scanning the neg and printing from there.
    Too much stuff between the other method. As was already said, it also
    depends on how many pixels you can scan the negative to. And, depending on
    the scanner/software, you can crop the scan as you go.


    "Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is it better to enlarge a photo from a negative then scan it,
    > crop then print out, rather than scan a 4x6 then enlarge & crop
    > then print it? Should I let the lab crop?
    >
    > I am concerned with grain in photos enlarged from ISO400&800 negatives.
    > On 4x6 I could hardly see it. I suppose enlarging
    > scanned 4x6's on computer would produce some noise too.
    >
    Sheldon, Mar 7, 2005
    #3
  4. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    Roy Guest

    Hi there.

    He is obviously talking about Print scanning.

    Making a new enlarged Print from the negative and scanning that would be
    better than scannning a small Print. Because the "Grain" of Real Photo Paper
    is rather large. Just look at the surface of a Print through a magnifier.

    It would, of course, be best to use a Film Scanner and Scan the original
    Neg, provided you use a scanner with reasonable resolution, something like
    2800 Ppi.

    If you are not intending to do the Photo Enlarging yourself, but are
    planning on getting a Lab to do it, then why not just get them to enlarge
    that part of the negative you want enlarged. Give them one of the small
    prints with a rectangle drawn on it to show what you want printed.

    You will always get better results by using an original (the neg) than by
    using a second generation image (a print).

    Roy G




    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:DmPWd.2949$...
    > Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    >> Is it better to enlarge a photo from a negative then scan it,
    >> crop then print out, rather than scan a 4x6 then enlarge & crop
    >> then print it? Should I let the lab crop?
    >>
    >> I am concerned with grain in photos enlarged from ISO400&800
    >> negatives. On 4x6 I could hardly see it. I suppose enlarging
    >> scanned 4x6's on computer would produce some noise too.

    >
    > It depends on many factors, in particular how good the negative scanner
    > is.
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    >
    Roy, Mar 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    paul Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:

    > Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    >
    >>Is it better to enlarge a photo from a negative then scan it,
    >>crop then print out, rather than scan a 4x6 then enlarge & crop
    >>then print it? Should I let the lab crop?
    >>
    >>I am concerned with grain in photos enlarged from ISO400&800
    >>negatives. On 4x6 I could hardly see it. I suppose enlarging
    >>scanned 4x6's on computer would produce some noise too.

    >
    >
    > It depends on many factors,
    > in particular how good the negative scanner is.



    What size do you want to print?
    paul, Mar 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Roy wrote:
    > Hi there.
    >
    > He is obviously talking about Print scanning.
    >
    > Making a new enlarged Print from the negative and scanning that would be
    > better than scannning a small Print. Because the "Grain" of Real Photo Paper
    > is rather large. Just look at the surface of a Print through a magnifier.
    >
    > It would, of course, be best to use a Film Scanner and Scan the original
    > Neg, provided you use a scanner with reasonable resolution, something like
    > 2800 Ppi.
    >
    > If you are not intending to do the Photo Enlarging yourself, but are
    > planning on getting a Lab to do it, then why not just get them to enlarge
    > that part of the negative you want enlarged. Give them one of the small
    > prints with a rectangle drawn on it to show what you want printed.
    >
    > You will always get better results by using an original (the neg) than by
    > using a second generation image (a print).
    >
    > Roy G
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Isn't all this rather moot at 4x6 size?




    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Roy wrote:
    > Hi there.
    >
    > He is obviously talking about Print scanning.


    Yea, you're right. I misread the original message.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    Roy Guest

    Hi there.

    Perhaps it was the Irish Mists or Myths rather than the Maths, but I do hope
    it was not Jamieson's

    Roy.


    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:%nYWd.15558$...
    > Roy wrote:
    >> Hi there.
    >>
    >> He is obviously talking about Print scanning.

    >
    > Yea, you're right. I misread the original message.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    >
    Roy, Mar 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Roy wrote:
    > Hi there.
    >
    > Perhaps it was the Irish Mists or Myths rather than the Maths, but I
    > do hope it was not Jamieson's


    I'm the odd one in the family. I don't like Jameson's. In fact I don't
    like Whiskey or beer. When I drink it is wine.

    I just was not paying attention.

    >
    > Roy.
    >
    >
    > "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    > news:%nYWd.15558$...
    >> Roy wrote:
    >>> Hi there.
    >>>
    >>> He is obviously talking about Print scanning.

    >>
    >> Yea, you're right. I misread the original message.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joseph Meehan
    >>
    >> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 7, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kay
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,668
    Bryce
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. Bill Hilton

    Re: Cropping whilst maintaining aspect ratio

    Bill Hilton, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 29, 2003
  3. w.a. manning

    DSLR: cropping and viewfinders

    w.a. manning, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    383
    tan boen hian
    Sep 6, 2003
  4. amh

    Cropping to an aspect ratio

    amh, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    827
    matthews
    Sep 19, 2003
  5. John

    cropping photos with Irfanview

    John, Jul 7, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    olfart
    Jul 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page