Question of charging?

[LookingUp]

((I really have to come up with a spreadsheet on how much to charge!))
I am asked to give a price to restore this photo. There is a lot of restoration that is needed. As you can see there is no sides to this photo. Can anyone suggest how much I should charge for this? I blurred the faces out.
Thanks for your help.

[Brentnauer]

Re: Question of charging?

At first glance the sides don't look like too big a challenge to reproduce... The kid's jeans just need to be extended a little, along with the piano and a little bit of the top of the dude's head. Definitely not the easiest thing to do, but not a monumental challenge if you know your content-aware and stamp tools well enough.

I've only ever done one-off stuff and I don't really know what the going rate for professional restorers or retouchers are, but if it were someone outside my family I'd probably feel okay charging 40 or 50 bucks for the one photo. That's just me though, and the value you place on your time and talent will obviously differ.

[Dwarvensilver]

Re: Question of charging?

I agree with Brentnauer.
Depends on how much you value your time, it could take some time to do this photo depending on your level of personal critique.
Might want to set an hourly charge and if it gets too high you donate the balance
I do it for the learning and Kudos.
Cheers,
Wayne

[Brentnauer]

Re: Question of charging?

Actually, that might not be a dude. I didn't see the longer hair and earring!

[LookingUp]

Re: Question of charging?

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am charging $65.00.
By the way, high do you think I should scan a photo for restoration as? I would think the higher the better.

[Brentnauer]

Re: Question of charging?

I've been doing double-pass scans at 2400 DPI, though it depends on the media you're scanning from. That's worked well enough for me though.

[Tony W]

Re: Question of charging?

...By the way, high do you think I should scan a photo for restoration as? I would think the higher the better.

Higher SPI is not necessarily better.

Scanning a print if in good condition and depending on final size required may require no more than 600 spi to resolve all the detail necessary. A negative is a different matter and with most flatbed scanners you will probably see no benefit in scanning above 2400 spi and probably only see improvement up to 1200 spi. A dedicated film scanner such as the old Nikon type will be able to resolve detail up to close their maximum of 4000 spi

At some point the scanner is unable to actually resolve any more detail this point is generally well below the manufacturers stated maximum uninterpolated figure. So in the case of an Epson flatbed that states e.g. maximum of 6400 dpi you will see no improvement to the ability to resolve detail probably after 1500-2400 dpi. You will of course get a bigger file with many more pixels but you will not have improved resolution as such.

The best way is to try yourself by scanning a small area of the image first (with important detail!) and starting at 300/600 spi make several scans doubling the spi each time then compare to see at what point there is no noticeable difference in resolving the fine detail

[LookingUp]

Re: Question of charging?

What is a double-pass scan?
Man, I have to review dpi and spi.

[Tony W]

Re: Question of charging?

Double pass scan or more usually referred to as multiple pass scanning can sometimes help with particularly dense images. The image is scanned more than once and the scanner software compares the values between each scan. If the pixel values are different the software recognises this as noise and adjusts accordingly to reduce the effect. There is no real affect that I am aware of in improving the resolution of an image using this method other than ridding the noise.

It usually is helpful when scanning dark transparancy or negative stock as the scanner has to work much harder to gather the information in these areas. I am doubtful that there are any benefits to be had using a multiple pass on print materials as they are unlikely to have a high D-Max in comparison to film stock. Therefore the scanner is not being pushed as hard

DPI = Dots or droplets per inch is probably best used when describing printer output. However it seems to be used as a general catch all by many including scanner manufacturers.

SPI = Samples Per Inch and although not often seen (replaced by DPI) is probably a more accurate way to describe the output to a desktop printer as it describes the number of input samples from the source material made by the scanner

Not forgetting LPI = Lines Per Inch which describe the half tone frequency of printing press for newspapers magazines etc.

[LookingUp]

Re: Question of charging?

Thanks for the info.
I just found out this photo is ONLY 5x7. If I scan it in at a high res it will make the photo larger correct?

[Brentnauer]

Re: Question of charging?

Well, 300 DPI is the standard I (and I think most people) follow for reproduction prints, so if you scan a 5x7" image at 600 DPI, you'll be able to print it at 10x14" at 300 DPI with no loss of quality.

You have to take the quality of the source image into account with that though. a blurry 2x3" photo riddled with obvious paper texture probably isn't going to look very good at 8x12" even if you scan it at 2400 DPI.

[Tony W]

Re: Question of charging?

Thanks for the info.
I just found out this photo is ONLY 5x7. If I scan it in at a high res it will make the photo larger correct?

It would be wise first to establish what finished size the client is expecting and the quality of the original i.e. is it sharp and are there any artefacts that will be magnified and perhaps unacceptable. You should advise the client in cases where you think that enlargement over the original size may dissapoint.

Scanning at a higher resolution will not actually make the image bigger but will comprise of the 5x7 image made up of more pixels so your choice of printing dpi will dictate the final image size.

If the starting image is in good condition and really sharp then it should stand enlargement. If not then you may have a battle on your hands trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear

[LookingUp]

Re: Question of charging?

Good point. The photo is not the best quality.

[LookingUp]

Re: Question of charging?

I'm going to give the photo to my client as a .tiff, pdf and jpg.
But what what .bit should I give it? 16 bit or 32 bit?

[Tony W]

Re: Question of charging?

Why not 8 bit?
Assuming that this is the finished article and the client will be doing nothing with it other than printing off the odd copies 8 bit should suffice.

16 bit printing while available as options with some printer drivers and OS is not usually required and some would argue brings very little, if any, benefit to the final image. At this time 32 bit would seem overkill unless the client has a specific need