TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-08 > 0996927307


From: "William M Roberts" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] More comments on writing the book.
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:15:07 -0400
References: <MPBBIHKABPIFJBGOECLHGENKDDAA.guitarman@surfbest.net>


Dennis

You are correct as to the physical size of the photo as well as the ppi. I
have a negative scanner that I use to scan 35mm and APS (24mm) negatives.
Since the physical size of the negative is so small I scan them at around
2400ppi optical (which is the maximum the negative scanner will scan).
Scanning the negatives gives me a much better 8x10 printout that scanning
the prints at 300ppi or at 600ppi.

The negative adapters on a flatbed scanner will not give the same results as
a true negative scanner (for small negatives) however I have to use my
negative adapter on my flatbed scanner if I have medium or large format
nagatives as my negative scanner is restricted to APS or 35mm negatives or
35mm slides..

Myrnice

"Dennis Davenport" wrote:

> Richard Brogger wrote:
>
> In the past I normally scanned and saved at 300 ppi. The last
> recommendation I read suggested 600 ppi and I intend to follow that
> recommendation. The cost of CD-R blanks is so low that larger files
> can be stored in multiple locations economically.
>
> Richard,
> In all the discussion on the list regarding photo scanning and archiving,
I
> haven't heard anyone mention the variable of "image size" and what that
> should be. I usually scan photos in tif format at 300dpi and be sure to
> make them at least 5 x 7 inches in physical size, if not a little bigger.
> If I did not pay attention to the image size and inadvertently scanned at,
> say, 2 x 3 inches, that image would not survive a blowup to print at 8 x
10.
> Now if I scanned at 600dpi, maybe a smaller physical size would suffice
even
> if I enlarged it for printing.

snip...


This thread: