Scanning Photos help please

Raptor Mike

Raptor Mike

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,812
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been asked my my Aunt to scan all my Grans photos. The idea is to make a photobook out of them for Gran and which ever of my Aunts and Uncles (there's seven including Mum) want a copy. I wanted to ask which resolution is best to scan? Also if anyone can recommend a good photobook printer/supplier?

My scanner is a standalone one, an Epson Perfection V370 Photo

Should I used the presets, eg restore colour, dust removal, or should I do it in Photoshop, or just leave them alone?

Thanks in advance
 
Scanning at the highest native resolution of the scanner to a tiff will give you the best file to work with but this can exceed the resolution of the source and creates large files. It depends whether you're scanning prints or negatives and whether you intend enlarging the image for printing. With prints scanning at 1200dpi is probably enough, it gives some leeway for enlarging and is more than enough for eventual printing at 300dpi.

I'd always scan as-is and process with LR/PS rather than let the EpsonScan software make corrections. How much you correct images is entirely up to you, there are arguments both ways.
 
I'm glad I asked because I would've thought 300dpi, or 360 for my Epson printer, would be enough. Also my 60D seems to do 240dpi, which I don't get, so how come you say as much as 1200dpi? (genuine question).
 
Assuming no cropping or enlarging 300dpi would generally be enough, but as soon as Auntie Dot gets a look at the end result and asks if you can enlarge the chap third from the back on the photo of Great-Aunt Hattie's wedding because she can't make out if it's Hattie's cousin Henry ("Who surely died the year before? - your mother will remember") or Hattie's brother-in-law Fred ("Nasty piece of work, killed his wife don't you know?") you don't really want to be dragging out the scanner all over again.

It also gives you more detail for any corrections or clean-up work.

Scan once with enough detail to give yourself some future leeway..
 
Couple of things to bear in mind. The resolution of photographic paper isn't as high as some people think. It doesn't need to be cutting edge, so that may be a limiting factor. Secondly the quality of the original image. Possibly shot with a inexpensive camera ( &lens!). May look OK on a 6 x 4 or similar but when you start to enlarge and crop, this is where you start to see the limitations. Also in the 80's textured surfaces were all the rage. This can affect the image quality, but possibly not as much as you think. Just be aware.

I'd do some test scans on a variety of prints. Change the scanning resolution until you find a level that doesn't give any worthwhile improvement. Also be aware as Alastair has said about people thinking you can get small detail from prints. I blame TV programs such as CSI that give people the idea anything is possible :)
 
Chappers said:
Couple of things to bear in mind. The resolution of photographic paper isn't as high as some people think.
Click to expand...
It depends on the paper and process. A 1970s Truprint 4x3 will probably run out of detail before 300dpi, whereas a Victorian collodion carte de visite will yield additional detail up to 2400di and perhaps beyond.
 
Awesome, thanks folks. Love the bit about the uncle lol. Regards to 'do' images from my camera are shown as 240dpi in lightroom, which seems a little low to me.
 
Raptor Mike said:
Awesome, thanks folks. Love the bit about the uncle lol. Regards to 'do' images from my camera are shown as 240dpi in lightroom, which seems a little low to me.
Click to expand...
Ignore the DPI setting of a digital file, it has no meaning - think about it, how many "inches" has a digital file got before it's printed?
 
I don't know tbh. I did read about the difference between dpi and mega pixels and know dpi is doing quality. Need to refresh I think
 
Raptor Mike said:
I don't know tbh. I did read about the difference between dpi and mega pixels and know dpi is doing quality. Need to refresh I think
Click to expand...
OK. The simple answer, which @Alastair gave a while back, is that DPI means nothing whatsoever in an image file.

The less simple answer is that, so far as I can see, it's a bit of historical baggage. Back in the days when people were drawing up the standards for JPEG files, they thought it would be a good idea to include a field in it which would help tell a printer how big the image should be printed. If the image is 1000 pixels across, and you want it printed at 10", then set the DPI tag to be 100. That sort of idea.

The thing is though, it's a bad idea. Suppose you now want to print the same image at 5". The logic says that you have to edit the image to change the DPI tag to be 200. But why? It's the same 1000 pixels. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two image files which are identical in their contents, but one prints at 10" and the other prints at 5". It makes far more sense to just ignore the DPI tag, and tell the printer how big you want the print. So that's what everybody does.

So why does your camera set the DPI tag to be 240? Well, the EXIF standard says that it has to set the tag to something, even though nobody will take any notice of it. At least it's not 72. To illustrate how thoroughly muddle headed the standard is, it says that if the DPI tag is missing or corrupted, it should default to 72. That value was apparently chosen because, in the days these things were being decided, 72 PPI was pretty much the standard resolution for computer monitors. But if you think it through, an image file trying to tell a computer monitor how big it should be displayed makes even less sense than an image file trying to tell a printer how big it should be printed. Monitors display the pixels they're given and that's it: a monitor with a screen resolution of 72 PPI has no option but to display at 72 PPI.

I bet you wish you hadn't asked now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
StewartR said:
OK. The simple answer, which @Alastair gave a while back, is that DPI means nothing whatsoever in an image file.

The less simple answer is that, so far as I can see, it's a bit of historical baggage. Back in the days when people were drawing up the standards for JPEG files, they thought it would be a good idea to include a field in it which would help tell a printer how big the image should be printed. If the image is 1000 pixels across, and you want it printed at 10", then set the DPI tag to be 100. That sort of idea.

The thing is though, it's a bad idea. Suppose you now want to print the same image at 5". The logic says that you have to edit the image to change the DPI tag to be 200. But why? It's the same 1000 pixels. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two image files which are identical in their contents, but one prints at 10" and the other prints at 5". It makes far more sense to just ignore the DPI tag, and tell the printer how big you want the print. So that's what everybody does.

So why does your camera set the DPI tag to be 240? Well, the EXIF standard says that it has to set the tag to something, even though nobody will take any notice of it. At least it's not 72. To illustrate how thoroughly muddle headed the standard is, it says that if the DPI tag is missing or corrupted, it should default to 72. That value was apparently chosen because, in the days these things were being decided, 72 PPI was pretty much the standard resolution for computer monitors. But if you think it through, an image file trying to tell a computer monitor how big it should be displayed makes even less sense than an image file trying to tell a printer how big it should be printed. Monitors display the pixels they're given and that's it: a monitor with a screen resolution of 72 PPI has no option but to display at 72 PPI.

I bet you wish you hadn't asked now.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm still glad I asked lol. Thanks for spending the time to explain it. (y)
 
StewartR said:
OK. The simple answer, which @Alastair gave a while back, is that DPI means nothing whatsoever in an image file.

The less simple answer is that, so far as I can see, it's a bit of historical baggage. Back in the days when people were drawing up the standards for JPEG files, they thought it would be a good idea to include a field in it which would help tell a printer how big the image should be printed. If the image is 1000 pixels across, and you want it printed at 10", then set the DPI tag to be 100. That sort of idea.

The thing is though, it's a bad idea. Suppose you now want to print the same image at 5". The logic says that you have to edit the image to change the DPI tag to be 200. But why? It's the same 1000 pixels. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two image files which are identical in their contents, but one prints at 10" and the other prints at 5". It makes far more sense to just ignore the DPI tag, and tell the printer how big you want the print. So that's what everybody does.

So why does your camera set the DPI tag to be 240? Well, the EXIF standard says that it has to set the tag to something, even though nobody will take any notice of it. At least it's not 72. To illustrate how thoroughly muddle headed the standard is, it says that if the DPI tag is missing or corrupted, it should default to 72. That value was apparently chosen because, in the days these things were being decided, 72 PPI was pretty much the standard resolution for computer monitors. But if you think it through, an image file trying to tell a computer monitor how big it should be displayed makes even less sense than an image file trying to tell a printer how big it should be printed. Monitors display the pixels they're given and that's it: a monitor with a screen resolution of 72 PPI has no option but to display at 72 PPI.

I bet you wish you hadn't asked now.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering, if back in the dim and distant past, setting the default dpi to 72 may have had something to do with the so-called "point size" in typeface settings, which is still in use today.
One Point is equal to 1/72 inch, so a 10 point font is approximately 1/7 inch high (about 0.35mm) or 72 points equals inch - don't you just love the imperial fractional system?
Unfortunately, even with the advent of the decimal system, these arcane measurement systems show no signs of laying down and dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top