enlargement of old prints on to pc

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JWBH, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. JWBH

    JWBH Guest

    I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy black
    and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.

    I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc and
    which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon ixy
    and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.

    Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with the
    highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so tiny and
    I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
     
    JWBH, Mar 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JWBH

    ray Guest

    Don't know the specs on your scanner, but if we assume it does 2400 dpi
    (which is certainly not unreasonable) that comes out to about 54mp for
    3x3. I've never tried taking a picture of a photo - you'd need to very
    carefully control several parameters - including having some type of copy
    stand in order to come close. Why not try a few shots both ways and see
    what you get?
     
    ray, Mar 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. JWBH

    Trev Guest

    Scan them at 600ppi and print at 200ppi will enlarge 3x to 9 sq. Unless
    there is any texture in the paper you should have no problem and better even
    illumination than if you used a Camera.
    The pixel count resolution is not the same as resolving power more does not
    necessarily give better images all that is needed is enough. In a 200ppi
    print the smallest detail will be 200th of an inch If you think you can see
    better with the naked eye at say a print held at 12inch from you by all
    means print at a little higher ppi
     
    Trev, Mar 2, 2007
    #3
  4. JWBH

    Mike Russell Guest

    Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
    prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
    surprised with the amount of detail you can get.

    I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
    copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a better
    result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
    surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting and/or
    polarized filtering.

    Here's a good reference for scanning:
    http://www.scantips.com/
     
    Mike Russell, Mar 2, 2007
    #4
  5. JWBH

    alrafter Guest

    The advice given by Trev in the previous post is spot on. If you have,
    or can get a photo editing programme
    to remove blemishes, sharpen and adjust brightness/ contrast etc, you
    will find you have a much better photo
    than the original.
     
    alrafter, Mar 2, 2007
    #5
  6. JWBH

    JWBH Guest

    Are you guys hot, or what! many thanks to all.......
    if it all goes pear shaped, who do i complain too. :) just joking.
     
    JWBH, Mar 3, 2007
    #6
  7. JWBH

    Joan Guest

    Nobody as you'll still have the original. :)

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    :
    :
    : Are you guys hot, or what! many thanks to all.......
    : if it all goes pear shaped, who do i complain too. :) just
    joking.
    : >
    :
    :
     
    Joan, Mar 3, 2007
    #7
  8. JWBH

    Mike Russell Guest

    ....
    You're welcome to complain to me, provided you explain exactly what is meant
    by "pear shaped". ;-)
     
    Mike Russell, Mar 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Since the slant of the advice here prefers the scanner, and I agree,
    but only if the scanner is a recent design with adequate features. In
    case it isn't, then photographing the prints can be an acceptable
    alternative - PROVIDED the camera has suitable macro focusing for
    close range. Without that, no matter the size in megapixels, it will
    not suffice.
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Mar 10, 2007
    #9
  10. JWBH

    JWBH Guest

    Thanks to all. Since my scanner is quite old, it's a 'Canon FB636U' would
    that be good enough?

    Or what kind of 'adequate features' should I be looking for on a new one?
    Any suggestions on which one to buy, that is reasonably priced much
    appreciated.
     
    JWBH, Mar 10, 2007
    #10
  11. JWBH

    Mike Russell Guest

    [re scanner versus camera]
    NO problem - this is a dynamite scanner.
     
    Mike Russell, Mar 10, 2007
    #11
  12. I think that I would suggest you try.

    Even 10 years ago using an old Mustek scanner, I was able to get good
    Black and white and reasonable colour reproductions.

    Don't forget that you will not be able to get better results than are
    visible in the original print. If your scanner can give 600 x 600 lines
    per inch resolution, you are probably OK.

    I have been amazed that a small increase in contrast gives an excellent
    improvement in quality.
    Frankly, until you are dissatisfied with what you have, I wouldn't
    bother.

    I now have an £80 Visioneer One Touch 9000 (that many here will sneer
    at) but it serves my purpose. Its main advantage is that the top is
    'side hinged' which I find easier to use.

    YMMV, of course.

    Mike

    [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
    --
    Michael J Davis
    <><
    Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
    the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Mar 11, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.