[sjm]

I'm beginning the scan and burn process of the old one-of-a-copy photos from my husband's family. I was told to scan with the highest possible peramaters. I was thinking of 600 dpi and 42 bits (UMAX Astra 2400S)

but I wind up with HUGE files, particularly with an 8 x 10 photo. But with the CDs, storage space isn't a major problem. But MAC is old ('96) and not as speedy as the newer machines.

Would I have just as 'workable' scans if I select 300 dpi and 8 bits?

I don't have time to attempt restoration right now, just preserving them in case of fire or natural disaster.

[thomasgeorge]

Sjm, The general rule of thumb is "more is better" However ,and remember this is just how I do it and it may not be the best way, I scan at 300dpi, full color and then save. When you start getting those 15 or 26 Mb files it doesnot matter how fast the machine is, things are going to slow down. Your "software" becomes "sleepware" as you almost have enough time to take a nap while it is scanning and importing. Tom

[Ed_L]

If you are going to make enlargements, you will need a higher resolution. If you scan a 4 X 5, and want to make an 8 X 10, you should probably scan at 600 or so (although some thinking on this has recently changed). If I'm wrong, I'm sure Tom will give me 40 lashes with a very wet noodle. (and he'll probably correct me too)!

Ed

[thomasgeorge]

Nope! Right as usual Ed. I seldom do 8x10's as most of the photos I see are at most 5x7 ( and the owners usually dont want anything bigger)the more common are perhaps 3x4 or so with many having been cutdown even smaller. For the larger size prints "bigger IS better". Tom

[Doug Nelson]

You need to scan at least enough to get 150dpi at your largest possible reprint size. If you're scanning an 8x10 and you know you'll never need to go larger than 8x10, then scan at 150dpi.

More IS better, but after a point it just becomes excess baggage for the computer and printer.

[DJ Dubovsky]

Excellent advice guys.

I know how frustrating it is to work in those bigger files where simple tasks take forever. (I usually use the time to hit the bathroom, cook supper etc) What would normaly be minimum restoration becomes major time for you. The hardest part as Doug has pointed out in another forum is "What if your customer comes back and wants a larger print?" Since then I have been trying to think in that direction and most cases I don't have to worry. Portraits however, you might want to think about scanning big as they may want those enlarged but for regular snapshots, it's really not a big demand to enlarge and some of them can't be made much bigger anyway. So I guess just take each photo and think about it's probable outcome and go according to the advice given by the guys and make your decision that way.
DJ

[sjm]

if I'm scanning an original 8 x 10 with no plans to go any larger, 300 dpi would be sufficient? I ususally print at 300 and that is the resolution that Kodak Picture Maker uses)

but if I'm scanning a TINY 1 x 2, then the 600 would be disirable since I"ll probably want to print at least a 3 x 5?

that seems to make sense.

now what about bits? stay with the max that my scanner will do?

[Doug Nelson]

Use the maximum your scanner will support, and stay within that as long as you can (you'll eventually have to reduce it, no way around that)

[akj]

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but did I get that right? Can you make a print off a CD from those Kodak Picture Maker things? Those little cubicles they have at drug stores and Meijer and such? I thought those were only for making copies and enlargements and such.

Amanda

[Ed_L]

Amanda,

I might be wrong (and it wouldn't surprise me), but I think there are two different machines. We have one available at a local pharmacy, and it takes CD's with no problem.

Ed

[sjm]

Yes, you can make a print at the Kodak Picture Maker machine if you're CD is properly configured.

I posted an e-mail that I received from Kodak with the instructions.

If you do a search of the forums, it should pop up.

Let me know if you can't find it and I'll re-post.

[Rick]

You know, I do agree with DJ.


What harm WOULD it do to simply do a more detailed scan? most of us have HD's the size of the grand canyons and even if we don't, we'll wind up burning it onto CD anyway.

The only affect this may have on a system is perhaps that Photoshop (or Paintshop) and the huge image file might gag on it and slow it down a tad.
This of course, can be easily remedied by adding more memory. (Memory is dirt cheap these days)


Rick

<tosses another 2 pennies on the table>