Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FHCNET] Re: Scanning Slides at St. Anthony Idaho FHC

Expand Messages
  • Gary Templeman
    ... From: singhals ... While there are some things you can t fix, it is surprising what good restoration techniques can do to old
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 10, 2011
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "singhals" <singhals@...>
      >
      > Worse -- many of the old photos aren't all that great a
      > quality anyway ... the film was grainier and the
      > stabilization poor; others were developed/printed with dirty
      > chemicals. No matter how high the DPI you use to scan
      > those, they are always going to be grainy, fuzzy, and bad.
      > As we used to say -- no point in scanning at a higher
      > resolution than your printer will print. But down where the
      > rubber meets the road, any copy is better than no copy.
      >
      > Cheryl
      >



      While there are some things you can't fix, it is surprising what good restoration techniques can do to old photographs, and the more data there is to work with the better. For example, by taking the scanned image of a faded photo and doing things such as multiple layers in Photoshop, it can often be made to look as good as new. A great resource is the book "Photoshop Restoration & Retouching" by Katrin Eismann. You can take a look at some of the sample chapters here http://www.digitalretouch.org/ and some sample images to see just what kind of magic can often be achieved.

      The JPG format in particular is compressed, and the more times it is compressed the worse the image will get. In many cases the photo being scanned is either irreplaceable, or the opportunity to scan it may not come again. So yes, any copy is better than nothing, but if the resources (quality scanner) and storage space are available, and because we may not know what the final print size may be, I would follow this quote from her book (my emphasis bolded).

      "One more example: For an Epson ink jet at 1440 dpi output, let's agree that we will need 240dpi data for our print. Now ask yourself what size you want the print to be. Let's say we want an 8x10 print. Multiply the long dimension of your desired print by the output resolution and then do the same with the short dimension. That gives you the number of pixels you need in your final scan. Therefore, in this example we would need 10x240 (2400 pixels) by 8x240 (1920). Getting those pixels from your scanner will vary depending on the controls the scanning software can provide. But you know the exact pixel dimensions needed at this point. Of course there are times when you just don't know what the final print size will be -in those cases opt for the conservative approach and scan in at the highest optical resolution possible. When in doubt, it is better to have too much information than too little. Sizing the file down in Photoshop is always better than sizing the file up."

      I would also save as a TIFF and not a JPG. By starting with a high resolution scan I have seen old pictures that were only an inch square get resized and printed as 8.5 X 11 or bigger in good quality. That would be difficult to impossible if it was initially scanned at 72 dpi. Once data is lost it is gone forever.

      There is no one size fits all scanning resolution, it depends on the material being scanned and the expected output.

      Gary Templeman

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Russell Hltn
      TIFF is good, but don t feel too badly if you have to go to JPEG for disk space reasons. Set the quality on high (say, 90). A little too much DPI (as long as
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 10, 2011
        TIFF is good, but don't feel too badly if you have to go to JPEG for disk
        space reasons. Set the quality on high (say, 90).

        A little too much DPI (as long as it's optical) is better then too little.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gary Templeman
        ... From: Russell Hltn To: Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Scanning Slides at
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 10, 2011
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Russell Hltn" <RussellHltn@...>
          To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:15 PM
          Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Scanning Slides at St. Anthony Idaho FHC


          > TIFF is good, but don't feel too badly if you have to go to JPEG for disk
          > space reasons. Set the quality on high (say, 90).
          >
          > A little too much DPI (as long as it's optical) is better then too little.
          >

          Which is exactly why I said "if the resources (quality scanner) and storage space are available".

          The main issue with JPG is if you ever want/need to do ANY editing in the future you will be compressing it a minimum of one more time. If the initial image you scanned from already has "issues" then any further degradation can be quite significant. With the cost of a 2 terabyte hard drive available for less than $100, there is really no reason for most people to have to compromise due to disk space.

          Gary

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • singhals
          ... Well, yes, given my druthers, I d druther have an uncompressed TIFF than a JPEG. But, since you can save JPEGs with 0% compression, I just set my devices
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 11, 2011
            Gary Templeman wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "singhals" <singhals@... <mailto:singhals%40erols.com>>
            > >
            > > Worse -- many of the old photos aren't all that great a
            > > quality anyway ... the film was grainier and the
            > > stabilization poor; others were developed/printed with dirty
            > > chemicals. No matter how high the DPI you use to scan
            > > those, they are always going to be grainy, fuzzy, and bad.
            > > As we used to say -- no point in scanning at a higher
            > > resolution than your printer will print. But down where the
            > > rubber meets the road, any copy is better than no copy.
            > >
            > > Cheryl
            > >
            >
            > While there are some things you can't fix, it is surprising what good
            > restoration techniques can do to old photographs, and the more data
            > there is to work with the better. For example, by taking the scanned
            > image of a faded photo and doing things such as multiple layers in
            > Photoshop, it can often be made to look as good as new. A great resource
            > is the book "Photoshop Restoration & Retouching" by Katrin Eismann. You
            > can take a look at some of the sample chapters here
            > http://www.digitalretouch.org/ and some sample images to see just what
            > kind of magic can often be achieved.
            >
            > The JPG format in particular is compressed, and the more times it is
            > compressed the worse the image will get. In many cases the photo being
            > scanned is either irreplaceable, or the opportunity to scan it may not
            > come again. So yes, any copy is better than nothing, but if the
            > resources (quality scanner) and storage space are available, and because
            > we may not know what the final print size may be, I would follow this
            > quote from her book (my emphasis bolded).
            >
            > "One more example: For an Epson ink jet at 1440 dpi output, let's agree
            > that we will need 240dpi data for our print. Now ask yourself what size
            > you want the print to be. Let's say we want an 8x10 print. Multiply the
            > long dimension of your desired print by the output resolution and then
            > do the same with the short dimension. That gives you the number of
            > pixels you need in your final scan. Therefore, in this example we would
            > need 10x240 (2400 pixels) by 8x240 (1920). Getting those pixels from
            > your scanner will vary depending on the controls the scanning software
            > can provide. But you know the exact pixel dimensions needed at this
            > point. Of course there are times when you just don't know what the final
            > print size will be -in those cases opt for the conservative approach and
            > scan in at the highest optical resolution possible. When in doubt, it is
            > better to have too much information than too little. Sizing the file
            > down in Photoshop is always better than sizing the file up."! ;
            >
            > I would also save as a TIFF and not a JPG. By starting with a high
            > resolution scan I have seen old pictures that were only an inch square
            > get resized and printed as 8.5 X 11 or bigger in good quality. That
            > would be difficult to impossible if it was initially scanned at 72 dpi.
            > Once data is lost it is gone forever.
            >
            > There is no one size fits all scanning resolution, it depends on the
            > material being scanned and the expected output.
            >
            > Gary Templeman

            Well, yes, given my druthers, I'd druther have an
            uncompressed TIFF than a JPEG. But, since you can save
            JPEGs with 0% compression, I just set my devices for the
            highest possible quality and lowest compression rates.

            As for restoration, a restoration expert I consulted back in
            the day was a bit scathing when he pointed out that he can't
            "restore" what was never captured by the film. He can
            invent it, or create it or doctor it, but he cannot restore
            it. As you say, an image scanned at 72dpi cannot be restored
            to 360dpi. And, IME, the higher res scan just brings out
            the flaws of the original, which is distressing to me. (g)

            Although -- it does seem the quality of the PRINTER has more
            effect on the printed outcome than the quality of the image.
            I've gotten 4x6 prints off 72dpi postagestamp-sized images
            that were just as good as the prints from the 360dpi camera
            images. I don't pretend to understand /that/, I just report
            it happened more than once. (g)

            Cheryl
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.