Scanning photos onto one's hard drive - why are the photos clearerthan the scan

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Patrick Briggs, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. Hi,

    Does anybody understand why when one scans photos off an Epson 1200
    Perfection (not accurate I think) scanner the results are slightly less
    sharp than looking at the photo itself.

    I'm scanning at 600 dpi and resizing the picture to 1100 x 700 pixels.
    I import the picture into Adobe Acrobat 6.0

    I wonder if it's something to do with older scanner technology (it's a 5
    year old scanner at least) or just a reality of scanning photos with
    consumer scanners. I assume that $1000 scanners used by ad agencies
    don't have this problem.

    If this is the wrong group to posts this to, does anybody know of a
    newsgroup that would be able to help?

    Thanks in advance.

    Regards,

    Patrick
     
    Patrick Briggs, Feb 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick Briggs

    Jim Guest

    Your problem results from a scan that doesn't have enough pixels.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Feb 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick Briggs

    Scott W Guest

    I assume you are scanning prints? if so then be aware that very few
    prints will have a lot of detail at 600 dpi. If you want a good test
    of the scanner scan a section of a dollar bill, these have very high
    resolution and should show you what you scanner is capable of.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Have you actually tried to do this lately? My guess is the answer is no.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Patrick Briggs

    Scott W Guest

    Why would you guess that, it is an easy and fast test of a scanner.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Put a $20 in your scanner and see why.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Patrick Briggs

    Battleax Guest

    Indeed. Forbidden image. Photoshop may also have the security code as well
     
    Battleax, Feb 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Patrick Briggs

    Stewy Guest

    I've scanned old photos at 600dpi. The limitations of the film become
    apparent at the scale - very few are well-focussed. There will also be a
    fair amount of scattering which will reduce the apparent sharpness.
    Scanning pre-WW2 stamps will also make a good test subject - before the
    Postal Bureau started printing their low-res offset litho stamps.
     
    Stewy, Feb 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Patrick Briggs

    Nicholas Tse Guest

    A 1100 pixels across the mointor!!
    I assume it to be more or less 11 inch measured across, that makes
    your photo viewing at the monitor at roughly 100 dpi only!!
     
    Nicholas Tse, Feb 20, 2006
    #9
  10. Patrick Briggs

    Bob Williams Guest

    Do you really mean that you imported the scanned image into Adobe
    Acrobat 6.0 and then printed it???.....How very droll.
    Scan it into a photo editor like Adobe Elements, Photoshop, Irfanview
    etc. Then print it without resampling it. Use your printer's highest
    quality setting. Your printer driver will resample the image to match
    the printer's optimum output.
    Remember, the image from your printer cannot possibly contain more image
    information than the original. Your scanner and your printer would both
    have to be PERFECT just to reproduce the same image quality as the original.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Feb 20, 2006
    #10
  11. Assuming you get other aspects corrected, how about a touch of USM to
    sharpen up your image ? You might need Photoshop for this.
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Feb 20, 2006
    #11
  12. All recent image editing programs have this. The only way I can get an
    image is to scan using HP Deskscan II with my old HP Scanjet 5P and save to
    a file from Deskscan. However, can't open that in PSP, PSE or PS.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 20, 2006
    #12
  13. Patrick Briggs

    Bill Funk Guest

    Why would you need PS to do a USM?
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 20, 2006
    #13
  14. Patrick Briggs

    Marvin Guest

    That's an odd procedure. First of all, there is no gain in
    amoage quality by scanning a print at more than 300 ppi.
    Then you reduced the nuber of pixels below 300 ppi, assuming
    that the original print was larger than
     
    Marvin, Feb 20, 2006
    #14
  15. Patrick Briggs

    Marvin Guest

    Sorry. I clicked the send button too soon. Ignore the first
    post.

    That is an odd procedure. First of all, there is no gain in
    resolution by scanning a print at more than 300 pp1 - and
    maybe more than 250 ppi. Then you resized the file too
    much, unless the original was 3 2/3" X 2 1/3" or smaller.
     
    Marvin, Feb 20, 2006
    #15
    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.